Honors Government: (Due 4/25/07)
Our nation (along with many industrialized nations) is dealing with an intense trade debate. Should our government promote the principles of free trade or should the government protect domestic producers from foreign competition? Please read the trade debate packet and address the following issue.
1) In your own words, describe the trade debate.
2) Which side has the better argument? Why?
3) Where do you stand on the issue?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
1) The debate between Douglas A. Irwin and David Morris is all about free trade and whether or not the United States should have it. Irwin believes that free trade will increase the production of goods and services the United States have and also lower prices for the consumers. International trade should also have no limits on it. Countries would benefit from free trade on exports and imports. Also, technology would become better and the income would, in turn, increase.
Morris is the exact opposite. He believes that the free market is value-driven. Globalization of the free market is wrong too. Wider markets can only raise the costs of goods and reduce specialization. Also, Morris believes that in the free market countris will only focus on making the things they make best, not even considering other countries and what they might need. Materialism is one downfall to the free market. Everyone wants something at fewer costs. Then, people will just want more and more goods. Price and cost,also need to be aline with each other, or the economy will fail.
2) The side that has the better argument is Douglas A. Irwin because he explained his views better. He gave many advantages to free trade that made a lot of sense to me. Irwin's explanations to why a free trade is good for America are well thought out and, I believe make senxe for an American society. An increase in productivity and a decrease in prices sounds good for America's economy.
3) I believe that free trade would be a good addition to the United States economy. The free trade will increase production on all of the goods and services being provided in the United States. With increased productivity comes lower prices. Free trade with other nations will also bring a better economies for whoever is doing the trading. I think that the United States should try and adopt the free trade system in order to make our economy boom.
1) The trade debate is a debate between having a global trade amongst countries and letting countries be. It's like, globalism, or not?
2) I feel that the "yes" side has the better argument because there were facts backing up the opinions. In the "no" side, it was pretty much like they were bashing all the things that the yes was fighting for. They just said everything was wrong pretty much instead of coming up with their own opinions and philosophies. I didn't like the No side.
3) I feel like going towards the "yes". I just feel that the no side wasn't accurately supported and I agree with the yes side. I think that having Japan sending toothpicks to us while we send chopsticks to them is perfectly fine because that will bring us closer and we're developing allies in the process. Everything grows with time. Our world needs to grow together as one if you ask me.
~*Julz*~
1) The argument for free trade gave several reasons for having free trade and he made it clear that he knew what he was talking about. He gives the reader new proven evidence that free trade is better and highly thought of by most countries. He says that if the U.S. had barriers from other countries, we'd be left behind with only resources which we can produce. He claims that we would be lost. The guy against free trade says that free trade causes many problems. One stating that airplanes that have to fly so much have been known to cause physical damage to a person who hears it constantly. He says that our nation will "give up sovereignty over our affairs in return for a promist of more jorbs, more goods, and a higher standard of living."
2) I feel that the argument for free trade had a better reasoning for how the believed. The guy gave several examples and many good reasons to support free trade for the U.S. He gives much information in order to prove his point and get people to agree with him. His words are very persuasive and are able to get to the reader.
3) I feel that our country will become a better nation if we stick to free trade. The only downside to free trade is that many skilled workers lose their jobs to people who are willing to work for less money. Free trade is a big opportunity for the nation and other countries to unite and find sufficient ways to creating goods that make life for people easier. It also improves our standard of living. These are all reasons why I support free trade and believe it holds a good future for the economy and the United States.
1) The trade debate is about whether or not free trade is a good idea.
2) I think that Irwin had the better argument because he had some well thought out information on why free trade is the better choice. Morris had some good information but he seemed to repeat himself a lot. He kept saying that countries should specialize in making the things that they are good at making; things they have enough resources to make.
3) I would have to side with Morris because it makes sense to specialize in certain items. I liked Morris's example of the toothpicks and the chopsticks. Japan, who has little wood, was sending toothpicks to the United States. And at the same time, the United States was sending chopsticks to Japan. Does this really make any sense? I don't think so. Why doesn't Japan stick to making something that they have the resources to make? And we could send them items made from wood since they don't have much wood. Or they could make their own chopsticks and we could make our own toothpicks. Wouldn't that be a lot easier? I think it would benefit the global economy to not have free trade. Free trade is ridiculous because then you have countries making whatever they want even if they don't have much of that resource.
1) Irwin supports free trade, Morris does not. Irwin believes that free trade strengthens our economy. I don't remember much about the first half for I had a headache while reading it yesterday and I am too lazy to go back and skim it.
However, Morris, thinks that free trade is bad for the economy. He believes it is what weakens our economy and everything is determined by like price and value. He doesn't like the fact that we get toothpicks from Japan either.
2) I believe in free trade so I agree with Irwin. America should trade with other nations and encourage a global economy. I didn't really get much from the opposing side other than ranting and quotes. I didn't really see any statistics saying that his plan would improve anything. I think by eliminating foreign trade and such, you cut out a huge amount of profit that could be made.
3) The United States has a free trade policy thing? If not, I believe we should adapt one. I don't know.
1) The debate at hand is whether to incorporate free trade into the American economic system or not. It is the debate of whether free trade will benefit our nation or will hinder our economic progress. The two spokesman in this article are Douglas A. Irwin and David Morris. Irwin supports free trade. He believes that it is a principle based upon years of other economic principles, such as comparative advantage. Morris believes in the opposite, that free trade will only hinder our economy. He says that it does not promote actual equality between nations, and lets some advance while others are left behind. He also believes that it goes against the natural progression of economy over time.
2) Irwin provides a better argument for his side. He outright lists the reasons for his belief in comparative advantage, and then thoroughly explains each one. He also provides background information and a hefty amount of examples and data to back up his opinion. Morris makes a good claim, but his essay seems somewhat disorganized, and he does not list his reasons for the argument. It just seems like a continual progression of thought instead of several coherent reasons. He does use examples however.
3) I stand with the pro-free trade argument. I believe that it does help the global economy, and that should be a primary concern as of now. We live in an age where our own economy should not be the only economy considered. Our global community continues to grow together. The free trade principle will speed up our process, and allow us to participate more in the international world. By denying free trade, we would only be hurting ourselves.
1. in my own words. the debte that is going on here is wheter or not the united states should have free trade or not. there is also another debate whether free trade is fair to the underdeveloped nations as it is fair to the overdeveloped ones.
2. irwin. that is who has the better argument. as morris is probably right that we shouldn't have free trade, iriwn describes his points better and has a better layout of thought. the philosphies are well developed and there isn't much left unsaid.
3. leaning toward the yes would be me. i feel that he has explained himself and therefore will draw many people. i think that this free trade will be a good addition to our economy and will allow some of the underdeveloped nations to grow as the untied states has over the years.
1.) The arugement gave reasons as to why free trade is best. Free trade is thought of as a better alternative in many other countries. He stated that if the U.S. put up barriers we would be left out, producing only what our country is able to.
Morris however, says that free market is wrong because all it will do is raise prices and materialism is already a big enough problem. He aslo states the statard of living would be raised.
2.) I think that the better of the two arugements are the first one for free-trade because it have better facts and used better reasoning. He gave many examples of why it would benefit us. I also think that the "against free-trade" was not very accuratly supported. His reasoning didn't make sense to me at all. He also didn't give very good examples and wasn't very persuasive.
3.) I think that the U.S. should stick with the free-trade. It really seems to be working decently for us so far. Free trade also helps other countries not just our own. It creates jobs for other countries and helps to bulid their economy also. So, Yay for Free-trade!
1-- This article has two sides to it. one, backed by Irwin , supports frewe trade and why the United Staes shouls have a free market system. Th other isde to the article gave reasons from Morris. this man was definaltey against free trade but yet his explinations as to why were weak and inconlusive. on the other hand Irwin made most of his objectives know and gave every possible hint or clue as to why free trade is the best system to go with.
2. Personally i think that Douglas Irwin gave the more detailed and descript answer tro the question of free trade. his explinations were easy to understand so that the reader, no matter what skill level, could understand and comprehend what he was trying to get across. i think that by using free trade the increase in porduction and decrese in the price of the goods is a great thing and i believe that America and all the citizens could make a free trade most benficial.
3.As i said above i believe that a free trade system would be the most beneficial to America. it offers a chance to get America new allies and i think it shows that America is wiling to be multilateral. by being multilateral i tihnk that we will be able to gewt more products to the States afrom other countries and this will inturn help the economy.
macky
1.) The trade debate has to do with the idea of a free market econonmy verus a protectionism econooomy. Peple who believe in a free trade market think their should be no trade barriers and that companies should be able to find employers oversees who will do the same work as Americans but they will do it cheaper so the company makes more money. The people against the free trade market believe that if we do this the country loses jobs and that sompetion will go down causing prices to go higher than they already are. The people in favor say it is the opposite and that with an economy that is free trade it incourages competion and tus driving the prices of good down.
2.) I believe the people for are in favor of free trade have the better arguements as they explained them better. LIke when they say free trade enables people to use productive resources more efficiently and therefore achieve a higher national income than it could in the absence of trade. I like te example they used of Uruguay and that the United States would gain $13 billion and the world would gain $96 billion.
3.) Although I thought the opinion for free trade maket was better than not for one I believe we shouldn't have a free trade market. If we don't have tarrifs it causes us to go into debt with other countries when we have t pay tarrifs on their things. Also I feel the only reason companies want to produce the products in other countries is for cheap labor. I can't blame them for wanting to make a higher profit but that doesn't necessairly mean it's right.
Casey Detro
1) This debate is about whether or not the United States should have free trade. Douglas Irwin believes in having free trade where David Morris believes we should not have free trade.
2) I believe Douglas Irwin had the better argument. He explained his views thoroughly and used a lot of facts in his explaintion. It made his views clear and understandable. He supported his opinion better than David Morris.
3) I agree with Douglas Irwin. Free trade would help the United States. It would be beneificial to the economy. Free trade would allow the U.S. to gain more allies. There are downfalls to both sides of the arguments, but I think free trade would be a good thing for the United States to take part of.
1 issue 18 was about the debate between Douglas A. Irwin and David over free trade. Irwin thinks that free trade would be best for the U.S. and the world. Because it would lower prices and that would be better for the consumer. it would also incerase production. it would help in foreign affairs. cause you could do what ever.
morris dose not like free trade. he thinks that free trade will rise pricesand cause countries to make only the things that they want to make not what will help other countries.
2 Irwin was the best. he had more information that i like he just souned better because it makes sense that lower prices for consumers sounds great.
3 i agree with Irwin. the us should have free trade. because the pro out weight the cons.
1.) The debate is about Free Trade and weather or not we should allow it and if it is or is not fair trade. Irwin argues that Free Trade allows for more variety of prodicts to come in and out of America. Also that Free Trade allows for more competition which will cause proces to go down.
Morris argues that Free Tradew is bad. We lose jobs domestically to overseas and American companies may be beat by foreign companies rather than other American companies. Also Free Trade would "widen the gap between the standard-of-living between rich and poor nations."
2.) I personally believe that Douglas Irwin for the "Yes" side had the better arguement. He actually made points with well researched data that supported free trade. Morris, on the otherhand, more or less disagreed with everything Irwin said--offering no other solution. Irwin was more persuasive for me in his language than Morris was.
3.) I believe that all thought it is bad to lose jobs to overseas, Free Trade would be a beneficial form of action. Globalization is the way of the future. We must work together and become one. Free Trade allows for this. I believe it must be watched closly--not allowing one country to become some sort of monopoly or too strong. The production of Oil is a very touchy subject and will be hard to control. Free Trade may be the best way in order to form alliances amongst the World.
1) The trade debate between Irwin and Morris is a debate about whether or not the United States should have free trade. Many countries favor free trade and Irwin believes that it would be beneficial for our country is we chose to have it. On the other hand Morris disagrees with this. Problems could occur such as prices increaing on goods instead of decreasing
2)In my opinion the side that is for free trade had the better arguement. They provided several reasons and opinions as to why they think what they think. They were very persuasive and gave plenty of examples. Everything that Irwin said I agreed with and was clear to me. It would be better for the United States if we had and increase in product with a decrease in price as Nick stated.
3)On this issue I believe that free trade would be a good plan for the United States to follow. The countries we would be trading with would become closer to us which we need. It is a win win situation because both countries will be benefiting from free trade. Our products would increase while prices decrease helping out our economy alot.
This debate between irwin and morris is all about the free trade and whether or not the US should have it or not. irwin is all for free trade while morris is against it. with free trade irwin says there will be less government interactions. morris is sayin that free trade will widen the standard of livn gap and it puts the main focus of companies on production and not what theyre doin to the enviroment.
i think irwin has the better arguement. i agree with most of what he says about govenment not getting involved in the matters of the economy. also that it will create a competion which in turn will take out the liitle or less productive companies leaving only the best to provide for us. he makes more sense to me.
i think that we should have free trade in our economy. it would greatly increase productions and quality of goods. with increased production it would mean lower prices for all of us to pay.
oh nd with Irwin's arguement about free trade, free trade will also raise the standard of living and increase production.
forgot that in first section :)
1) The trade debate between Douglas A. Irwin and David Morris is over the issue of free trade. With free trade there is a minimum degree of regulation and openness to new ideas. While Irwin is in support of free trade, Morris is strongly against it.
- Douglas A. Irwin: With free trade, comes more competition. This forces companies and countries to have better research and development and to develop better technologies. This in turn raises productivity, raises GDP, and raises the standards of living.
-David Morris: With free trade, Morris says this will widen the standard of living gap, jobs will be given to those oversee or the wages will be decreased, and there will be a separation between authority and responsibility. Also, while companies are only going to be worried about production, they will be less worried about the environmental effects.
2) While both Irwin and Morris do a nice job in explaining their viewpoints, Irwin has the better argument of the two. Irwin seems to have more facts to back up his viewpoints. Unlike Morris, he uses a lot of years and dollar amounts in his writing. Despite being correct or not, it is always good to have as many facts as possible to back up your beliefs. Much of what Morris says is only opinion. Also in the conclusion of Morris's writing he names off a list of the effects of free trade but then says free trade id not the only factor causing them. This just weakens his point.
3) I agree with Irwin's stand on the issue that there should be free trade. With free trade come higher production, lower production costs and cheaper products, and a higher standard of living. The only thing that would need to be regulated is the environment. I guess I mainly agree with Irwin but some aspects of Morris's paper were respectable.
1.) The trade debate, discussed between Douglas A. Irwin and David Morris, is basically talking about how the United States should handle the whole situation and whether or not to accept free trade. In the article, Douglas A Irwin spoke on how the government and the U.S would highly benefit if we did use free trade, because it would help to make better products that more countries can produce, while making those products that they know how to make best(more convienient because the country has more materials to make them). It would help decrease the price of the good that is being exported and imported. On the other hand, David Morris argued that free trade, yet very popular, is causing many countries(including the United States) to spike up the prices on their products, and not just on exports. It's on imports too. He believes that many people focus on how much better the product could be than actually helping each country that produces that certain product and buy it from them, even though they don't necessarily specialize in it. Morris also talks about how cost and price are two different things that we as a country need to take in, and that also deal with why he believs that free trade is "the Great Destroyer".
2.) I believe that Douglas A Irwin gas the better side because his argument for free trade was very descriptive and persuasive. He made free trade sound so good. Like Irwin had said, free trade will help decrease prices, help make better products, promotes efficiency, etc. "A complete elimination of global barriers to trade in goods and services would bring much larger gains," said Irwin. That would surely help out our country. Another thing that I picked out that reallly made me for free trade is, "Free trade contributes to a process by which a country can adopt better technology and exposes domestic industries to new competition that forces them to improve their productivity. As a consequence, trade helps raise per capita income and economic well-being more generally." New technology to produce some new products, and better the older ones.
3.) In my opinion, I am for free trade because it would be good for our country to take part in a little competition so we can produce more products that will help out not only consumers in our country, but also consumers of other countries like China, India, Japan, whom we are already importing and exporting goods from. It will help unite countries and will better the relationship we have with others. ~Stephanie~
1) The actual debate is wheter or not free trade is really better trade, but it leans a lot towards whether or not outsourcing is right.
2)I thought that the free trade argument was stronger than the opponent. Irwin uses more examples than Morris and Morris seems to muddy the waters in his debate. Irwin seems to be more specific and have more proof than Morris. Although Morris does have some specific examples I believe they did not outweigh Irwin's
3)I believe that I side with the free trade argument. If we switched sides than are whole economy will collapse. In the current time period i belive that there cannot be a switch in the economy.
1. The Trade debate is wheather or not free trade is a good idea and wheather or not having a global trade amonst countries?
2. I agree with Irwin because im a firm believer in free trade and think that America should trade with other countries and encourage a global economy.I believe Irwin had the better argument on why free trade was better.
3. If the U.S. doesnt have a free trade policy then i feel we should get one but i think we have it now anyway.
1.)in my own words the trade debate is the debate over wheather or not free trade is the right kind of trade. and whether or not the US should be invloved in a free trade market or not.
2.)i feel that the Yes side had the better arguement i feel that if we let the buisinesses run themselves with minimul government interference the economy will be better as well as if we were involved with other countries like opening our trading doors to other countries. opening those windows would keep foreign relations well and keep things like 9/11 and more wars from ever happening again and would help the worlds economic status grow. i understand how the No argument would work by forcing less economically fortunate groups to grow but that is an inhumane way of pushing some one to do that. forcing them to either grow economically or die.
3.) i stand with the Yes side i feel that we should open our doors with other countries to help beter the economy of our country and that of the worlds.
1.) The trade debat is about wheather or not free trade is a good thing or a bad one.
2.) The side that said that free trade was a good thing had facts that help support the way they felt. The side that felt the other way was just putting the other side down. They had no facts they just put the opposite of what the other side said.
3.) I would have to lean twards the "yes" side. Both side were not as clear as they could have been. Trading between countries make the connection between them a stronger one. Eventually I feel the world will work as one and there wont be any more wars but it will take time. We are going in the right direction by trading freely with one another.
The trade debate is over whether or not the U.s. should have free trade and how having it is hurting us and how not having it will hurt us. Like having free trade is a good thing because it helps the production of goods and other products. But the downside is that a bigger market makes prices change.
Free trade seems to be the better argument. It helps us communicate more with other countries, while also forming ties with those countries we trade with. We gain technology, goods and services. Its a win win.
I think free trade is the way to go. It has some bad effects but all around it is a good idea. Plus its being used and will continue to be used.
1.The trade debate is the argument between whether or not to have free trade.
2. To me Irwin’s debate was the best. He really thought out what he was going to say and presented it clearly. Lower prices always sounds better. Morris did give some good argumentative statements but he constantly repeated himself. Irwin wins overall to me.
3. We should have free trade like Irwin says. There is just more good in free trade than bad.
Brittany Shuler
Post a Comment