One of the issues that I felt the college republicans misrepresented during the debate was the question of the trade deficit and the Democratic response to it. It seems to me that the College Republicans painted the question of the trade deficit as a question of "Market Economies vs. Isolationism" when that is in fact, largely untrue. It is difficult to explain an issue as complex and convoluted as the trade deficit in 2 minutes, so perhaps the problem was just the lack of time, but I just want to reiterate Chris's statement of the Democratic position on this issue.

The purpose of tarriffs right now is not to impose protectionist policies for our industries, but to correct the very market-limiting policies imposed by the Chinese government.

The deficit has many causes, one of the chief ones is the undervaluing of the Chinese currency - ren min bi. Some economists believe that the ren min bi is undervalued as much as 40%, meaning that American goods sold in China gets a large markup while the Chinese goods sold in America gets a huge discount in price. The cost of this is largely bourn by the Chinese workers and investors, whose pay and capital are then much lower in comparison with their Western or Japanese counterparts. This leads to uncompetitiveness of China as a buyer on the world stage, and leads to lack of investment in foreign industries. Essentially, all the money is flowing into China, and no private investment is coming back. This isn't a "market", it is a government using its history as a command economy to gain a large competitive advantage for its own companies, often at the expense of foreign competitors.

To exacerbate the problem, the Chinese central bank also has a history of hoarding capital and currency. This is done to largely to combat inflation, but it also has the harmful side effect of denying capital flow to private business. This means that the already low purchasing power of the Chinese consumer is further decreased by a bank that refuses to increase money supply. Finally, a third, and perhaps most un-fair and un-market friendly action conducted by the Chinese - the large government subsidies for export companies, such as those involved in making steel, textile, tires and other manufacteured materials. The result of this is that the Chinese companies gain an unfair advantage over their US counterparts as they have more capital to expand and grow, making it difficult for the unsubsidized US companies to compete in both pricing and production.

The tarriffs, an idea gaining momentum among both Democrats and Republicans, are designed not as the answer to the trade deficit. Rather, the tarrifs act as a cautionary act against China and their largely market-deficient policies and their lack of economic liberty. To say that the Democrats (or those Republicans such as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham) are enemies of the market shows a lack of understanding of the conditions in China. The only policy that has led to Chinese Economic Liberalization is the enactment of tarrifs, be they by the US, the EU, or nations like Japan and Russia. What those that support the tarrifs want is a fairer international market, and for China's government to loosen their tight grips on the capital of their nation.