Team America Strikes Again!

After our in class simulation it is difficult to establish the victor of our debate. Since I feel that the groups should be judged for the work they put into the simulation, and not the final outcome, it seems that it would be more fair to select a group over a team, with a team being the cooperative of groups arguing for a common outcome. 

The American Auto Manufacturers probably performed best during the simulation. My reason for highlighting their effort, however, is not entirely due to their skillful rhetoric but more so the inability of other groups to support their respective positions as strongly. Certain groups seemed to contradict their own stances after attempting a counter-argument, while others adequately defined their position but then produced no compelling reasons for it. 

The domestic manufacturers favored the elimination of domestic content regulation, arguing that the removal of this non tariff barrier would lead to lower production costs for their companies, as they could outsource to countries where labor was less expensive. The decrease in labor costs would have a direct relationship to the cost of the vehicle for the consumer. I credit the group for acknowledging that such regulation is actually somewhat of a disadvantage to domestic auto manufacturers, as it prevents them from attaining lower production costs. 

Domestic content regulations would also prevent the manufacturer from building plants abroad, as they could not legally be used to their full potential. The group cited this as a constraint on free trade, re-enforcing the idea that such measures would be counterproductive to the American automotive industry. 

The economic savvy of this group was not exhibited in the arguments of other groups, all of whom failed to recognize such regulations as a two way impact. The United Auto Workers, in one case, even appeared to advocate protectionism, alleging that the elimination of these regulations would result in an increase in American job losses. 

The UAW response is critical to the debate, as they too were among the contenders in the simulation. But their arguments exposed several incorrect beliefs that largely invalidated their argument. The first of these was protectionism. Citing the current economic crisis, their immediate reaction was to cut off foreign imports and tighten regulations on trade, including the enactment of stronger trade barriers. Such a tactic is irrational in that the world is now in an interdependent economy, so such isolationism is no longer a feasible practice. Additionally, the manufacturing of foreign autos by foreign companies in the U.S. is responsible for approximately 700,000 jobs, a yield that disproves the notion that ending content regulation will end American jobs. 

Despite these inaccuracies, the UAW presented a decent argument. But because their position contained flaws that the American Auto Manufacturer’s position did not, victory must go to the domestic manufacturers. 

With regard to the other groups, I felt that the Sierra Club focused too much on an aspect of their policy that was of a lesser significance. Their dismissal of addressing the Kyoto Pact was an absence that could not be ignored. The consumers played the part, but though they defended their position they did not advance beyond it, giving no reason to why they would have the best argument. As for my group, the foreign auto manufacturers, it doesn’t matter how well they did; they’re foreign. Well done American Auto Manufacturers! Our rice hats/turbans/yamakas off to you!