Negative Evidence Packet
Highway Trade-off Disadvantage
Download 347.52 Kb.
|
Highway Trade-off DisadvantageThe Highways Disadvantage is a negative argument that says that investing in public transit leads to fewer vehicle miles travelled. With fewer vehicle miles travelled, there will be less revenue available for investing in highway infrastructure and repair. Infrastructure and repair of highways, it is argued, is critical for economic growth. Good and efficient roadways are necessary for the movement of goods and services, for the efficient movement of people to and from places of employment, and access to materials. By hurting the US economy, the disadvantage says, it will hurt the trade competitiveness of the United States in the global market place. 1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 1/3
Building America’s Future Education Fund, 2011. Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind, Transportation Infrastructure Report, p. 16 Meanwhile, underinvestment in airports, in commuter and freight rail, and in ports costs us jobs, economic growth, and access to overseas markets. Compared to the signifi cant sums dedicated to roads, government spending on other modes of transportation is relatively meager. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) spends about $10.2 billion a year on public transit, or less than a quarter of what it spends on highways. The federal government contributes even less to Amtrak’s operation costs. In contrast to its highway funding programs, USDOT encourages greater state contribu tions to transit projects. Since the majority of states are constitutionally or statutorily prohibited from using state gas taxes for public transit projects, USDOT’s funding requirements are a tough imposition on states. Unwilling or unable to match federal contributions with general revenue funds, states may be more inclined to seek funding for more road projects than for new transit projects.
Federal Transit Administration, January 2010, “Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change” US Department of Transportation, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange2010.pdf Multiple studies have quantified this relationship between public transportation, land use, and reduction in travel. Studies show that for every additional passenger mile traveled on public transportation, auto travel declines by 1.4 to 9 miles.7In other words, in areas served by public transportation, even non-transit users drive less because destinations are closer together. One study used modeling to isolate the effect of public transportation on driving patterns (rather than that effect combined with denser land use creating a need for improved public transportation). That study, conducted by consulting firm ICF and funded through the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), found that each mile traveled on U.S. public transportation reduced driving by 1.9 miles. It concluded that public transportation reduces U.S. travel by an estimated 102.2 billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) each year, or 3.4% of annual U.S. VMT.8 Moreover, the report argued, by reducing congestion, transit lowers emissions from cars stuck in traffic. The Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Mobility Report estimates that by reducing congestion, transit saved an estimated 340 million gallons of fuel in 2005.9 1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 2/3
Covington, January 19, 2012, “More Fuel Efficient Cars Spell Less Money For Mass Transit”(Phil Covington holds an MBA in Sustainable Management from Presidio Graduate School. In the past, he spent 16 years in the freight transportation and logistics industry) http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/01/fuel-efficient-cars-spells-money-mass-transit/ At issue is the federal gasoline tax, which at 18.4 cents per gallon, is one of the world’s lowest rates. This tax goes into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which was created in 1956 to finance highway construction nationally. In 1982, Congress expanded its scope to fund mass-transit as well. In short, gas taxes help fund mass transit, and today, the fund is being stretched beyond its limits. According to the Economist, HTF revenues were down by one seventh between 2007 and 2010 alone; a combination of fewer miles driven by Americans, and in more fuel efficient cars. If this trend continues, it will have a significant adverse impact on an already shaky infrastructure, as the HTF accounts for 22 percent of all highway funding and 17 percent of mass transit funding. C. Impact: Highway funding is key to US Competitiveness Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011 [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011 http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf] The U.S. surface transportation infrastructure, which is intended to deliver mobility in an efficient and safe manner, instead subjects drivers to traffic congestion that stifles commerce and impedes mobility around cities and along freight corridors across the nation. The average rush-hour commuter spends a full workweek stuck in traffic each year, and together commuters annually waste 3.9 billion gallons of fuel and incur a direct cost of $115 billion (in 2009 dollars). Demand for freight transportation is expected to double by 2035, yet there is no long-term plan to address mounting congestion. The failure to address system inefficiencies adds to the cost of moving goods and threatens America’s economic competitiveness. 1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 3/31. Bad Highways weakens US competitiveness with China Matt Sledge, Huffington Post, 2.2.12 [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/us-infrastructure- deficit_n_1250886.html China envy has its problems. The country's growth spurt is relatively new, so it's no surprise that its infrastructure is shinier. The innovative maglev train from the Shanghai airport to the center city isn't necessarily representative of facilities in the country's interior. The country's centralized, dictatorial leaders, meanwhile, often steamroll over environmental and safety concerns. But analysts from such disparate groups as the US Chamber of Commerce and major labor unions agree that our failure to invest is hurting the U.S. economy and U.S. businesses. Indeed, that was the thrust of a September report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, which calculated that deficient and deteriorating roads will cost US companies $240 billion over the next ten years in lost growth potential. 2. American Economic Decline increases risk of war with China Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, 2012 [Foreign Policy January/February 2012 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/8_geopolitically_endangered_species] Since 1972, the United States has formally accepted the mainland's "one China" formula while maintaining that neither side shall alter the status quo by force. Beijing, however, reserves the right to use force, which allows Washington to justify its continued arms sales to Taiwan. In recent years, Taiwan and China have been improving their relationship. America's decline, however, would increase Taiwan's vulnerability, leaving decision-makers in Taipei more susceptible to direct Chinese pressure and the sheer attraction of an economically successful China. That, at the least, could speed up the timetable for cross-strait reunification, but on unequal terms favoring the mainland. At stake: Risk of a serious collision with China. 3. US-China War goes nuclear The Straits Times 2000 [June 25, p. ln] THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Uniqueness Extensions—Funding to Highways NowStates steer all federal funds to highways maintenance under current lawTransportation for America, 2009 Platform for the National Transportation Authorization Programp. 10 Flexible funding provisions have not been exercised by most states, with most of the national total in “flex funds” occurring in just five states: California, Pennsylvania, New York, Oregon and Virginia. Efforts of MPOs to take charge of local transportation program priority setting have met with entrenched resistance from many state DOTs, with the result that in many urban areas (especially smaller areas) the state still controls development of the transportation improvement program. As a result, over three-fourths of the national transportation program continues to be invested in highway system expansion nationally. Funding is directed to roads nowBuilding America’s Future Education Fund, 2011. Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind, Transportation Infrastructure Report, p. 16 Government transportation spending, at all levels of government, is overwhelmingly directed toward roads. Since 1956, the largest portion of public funding for transpor tation infrastructure was dedicated to building and maintaining highways.1 Although a small portion (15%) of the federal gas tax is dedicated to a fund for mass transit, the vast majority of federal gas tax revenue is spent on highways. The same is true for state gas taxes: 30 states are actually constitutionally or statutorily required to spend 100% of their gas tax revenues on roads. The disproportionate channeling of transportation dollars toward highways has encouraged more and more construction of roads, even as the demand rises for other forms of transportation. Uniqueness Extensions—US Infrastructure Good NowUS Infrastructure is among the best in the world Charles Lane, Washington Post 10.31.11 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-infrastructure-argument-that- crumbles- upon-examination/2011/10/31/gIQAnILRaM_story.html] For all its shortcomings, U.S. infrastructure is still among the most advanced in the world — if not the most advanced. I base this not on selective personal experience but on the same data alarmists cite. The contiguous United States (that is, excluding Alaska and Hawaii) cover 3.1 million square miles, including deserts, mountain ranges, rivers and two oceanic coastlines. In a world of vast dictatorships (China), tiny democracies (Switzerland) and everything in between, from Malta to Mexico, the challenge of building and maintaining first-rate roads, bridges, railroads, airports and seaports in a country like the United States is extraordinary — and so is the degree to which the United States succeeds. When you compare America’s WEF rankings with those of the 19 other largest countries, it stands second only to Canada, which is lightly populated — and whose infrastructure is linked with ours. Infrastructure risks are overstated Randal O’ Toole, CATO Institute, May 15, 2012 [Policy Analysis: Ending Congestion by Refinancing Highways, No. 695, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf] In recent years Americans have been besieged by reports that the nation is in the midst of an infrastructure crisis. Those claims are simply wrong, at least with respect to highways and bridges. Nationally, the number of bridges considered “structurally deficient” has declined in every year since 1990 (the earliest year for which data are available). Where nearly 138,000 bridges were so classified in 1990, by 2011 the number had declined more than 50 percent to less than 68,000 (see Figure 3). 12 As there are more bridges today than in 1990, the percentage of deficient bridges has declined even more. Highway conditions have also steadily improved. One measure of highway condition is the International Roughness Index, which ranges from 0 to 300 with lower numbers being smoother. As shown in Table 2, this index has steadily improved for all major highway systems. Link Extensions—Less Money for HighwaysTransportation revenue comes from highway miles driven which the affirmative claims to decrease with their plan. Thus, there will be less money for highway investment.Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs, Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011 [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth, National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011] This is the case even though transportation programs have historically been financed to a greater extent by “user fees” than by general funds. Nevertheless, transportation spending has been deeply affected by the same trends that have contributed to the deterioration of the overall federal budget situation. Resistance to raising taxes has meant that federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel—at 18.4 and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively—have not been raised since 1993. Taking into account inflation, this means real tax rates have declined: in addition the purchasing power of the dollar, as measured by the consumer price index, has fallen by one-third over the same time period. Revenues raised through the gas tax have fallen still further relative to the actual demands placed on the nation’s highways as cars and trucks became more fuel efficient and thus traveled further on each gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel. This means that Federal Highway Trust Fund revenues per mile driven have fallen dramatically since better fuel economy translates into fewer gallons of fuel purchased for the same. Fewer miles driven means less revenue for highwaysNational Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, 2009, Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance, Final Report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, February 2009 p. 101 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will maintain an average annual growth rate of 1.5–2.0 percent over the long term as economic expansion and population growth continue to generate demand for highway travel.5 At the same time, however, the most recent U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates predict that the average fuel efficiency for all light-duty vehicles on the road will grow from 20.4 MPG today to 28.9 MPG by 2030, an increase of 42 percent, while that for freight trucks will grow from 6.0 MPG to 6.9 MPG, an increase of 15 percent.6 The combined effect of these anticipated trends is that at current tax rates, total nominal tax revenues will continue to grow, although at a slower rate than inflation. (Thus the purchasing power of the generated revenues will actually decline and will decline even further as a share of VMT.) The growth that does occur will largely be due to steady nominal growth in diesel tax proceeds. (See Exhibit 4–4.) Nominal gasoline tax revenues will only experience moderate growth over the next 25 years and are actually expected to dip for a period until the growth in travel (due in large part simply to population growth) offsets the effect of fuel efficiency improvements on total gas consumption. As illustrated in Exhibit 4–5, the growth in total federal motor fuel tax revenues will be insufficient to keep up with inflation. Thus while annual nominal fuel tax revenues are expected to climb to $38.3 billion by 2035, the value of these revenues in 2008 dollars will only be $22.4 billion. Link Extensions Less Money for Highways Decline in gasoline tax revenue will decrease money for highway investmentNational Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, 2009, Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance, Final Report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, February 2009 p. 108 Looking forward, a variety of factors are converging to challenge the preeminence of MFTs as the primary source of surface transportation funding. Due to a combination of travel growth, system deterioration, increasing construction costs, and lack of indexing, fuel tax revenues are becoming increasingly inadequate to meet investment needs. This inadequacy will likely be exacerbated as improved fuel efficiency and the development of alternative fuel vehicles reduce fuel consumption. Moreover, the public’s willingness to pay for the required investments through an increase in motor fuel taxes appears to be weak and may be declining. At the same time, the growing need to maintain and adequately fund a national transportation system will heighten the importance of developing a funding approach that will meet future system improvement and maintenance needs. In urban congested areas, it is possible that charging users of the system more directly will not only raise revenues but also influence driver behavior and lead to reductions in both congestion levels and the investment that is needed. The bottom line conclusion of the Commission is that motor fuel taxes are currently the most viable federal funding source for surface transportation investment and will likely remain so for several years. The inability of these taxes, particularly at current rates, to meet future investment needs, however, clearly raises questions about their long-term sustainability. National Transportation Policy Project, June 2011 [Performance Driven: Achieving Wiser Investment in Transportation, Bipartisan Policy Center, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/performance-drivenachieving- wiser-investment-transportation] Today’s situation is different. Leaders from both parties have made it clear that an increase in the motor fuel tax is highly unlikely (the tax was last changed in 1993). Even after the economy revives, revenues from federal highway user fees are expected to grow more slowly than in previous decades. Automobile fuel economy is increasing again and current federal mandates require the new car and light truck fleet to reach a combined fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. More efficient vehicles, a reduced rate of growth in VMT, and a continued transition away from gasoline as our primary motor fuel, inevitably means that the current highway funding mechanism will generate fewer new dollars than in the past. Link Extensions—Highways Key to GrowthHighway spending increases growth for many reasonsHoward Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011 [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.pdf] In this study, we concentrated on this foundational issue and explored the extent to which highway investments in fact contribute to improvement in economic outcomes. Transportation investments generate improvements in economic well-being by increasing connectivity and reducing travel time, and, in the best case, they increase productivity— the ability to generate more output from each unit of labor, capital, and materials inputs. Productivity increases lead to higher employee earnings, higher profits, and improved standards of living. These, in turn, encourage private capital investments in structures, equipment, and technologies and thus create jobs. Aside from productivity improvements, other valuable outcomes include increases in output, employment, and income. Transportation infrastructure investments expands markets, increases trade advantage, and increases economic developmentT.R. Lakshmanan, 2011 (Boston University, Dept of Geography and Environment) [J of Transport Georgraphy, 19 (2011) p.1-12] Fig. 8 offers one view of the mechanisms and processes underlying the wider economic benefits of transport infrastructure investments. It is a contemporary version of what the Economic Historians, (e.g. Williamson, 1974; O’Brien, 1983) call ‘‘forward linkages” of transport infrastructure. The lower costs and increased accessibility due to transport improvements modify the marginal costs of transport producers, the households’ mobility and demand for goods and services. Such changes ripple through the market mechanisms endogenizing employment, output, and income in the short run. Over time dynamic development effects derive from the mechanisms set in motion when transport service improvements activate a variety of interconnected economy- wide processes and yield a range of sectoral, spatial, and regional effects, that augment overall productivity. The lower costs and enhanced accessibility due to transport infrastructure and service improvements expand markets for individual transport-using firms. As such market expansion links the economies of different localities and regions, there is a major consequence in terms of shifting from local and regional autarky to increasing specialization and trade and the resultant upsurge in productivity. Thus, the US Interstate Highway System, the Trans- European Network (TEN) Program and super-efficient ocean ports all contribute to ‘‘Smithian” growth— growth arising from specialization and trade. Highway investment increases trade advantagesT.R. Lakshmanan, 2011 (Boston University, Dept of Geography and Environment) [J of Transport Georgraphy, 19 (2011) p.1-12] The lowering of travel time and costs, and the service improvements induced by transport infrastructure expands the markets for individual transport-using firms. As such market expansion links the economies of different localities and regions, there is a major consequence in terms of a shift from local and regional autarky to increasing specialization and trade and the consequent upsurge in productivity. This is as true for inter-regional trade between highly differentiated regional economies in continental regions such as the United States or the European Union as for cross-border international trade in Free Trade Areas (FTAs). The US Interstate Highway System, the Trans-European Network program and the emergence of super-efficient ocean ports all contribute to ‘‘Smithian” growth—growth arising due to specialization and trade. Link Extensions--Highways Key to Growth Transportation infrastructure is essential Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011 [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011 http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf] These shortfalls in our federal transportation program do not justify abandoning federal transportation assistance—quite the opposite, actually. A nation’s transportation system is a major actor in its economy, deserving investment and requiring federal funding and oversight. Changes to the system will help ensure future economic growth, recognize demographic and geographic shifts in both population and preferences, advance environmental and energy security, and embrace and support innovation. All of these items are necessary to maintain global competitiveness and guarantee future prosperity. Highways are key to economic growth Ernst Frankel, Professor Emeritus, Engineering, MIT, October 2007 [http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/201/frankel.html] Infrastructure is the lifeblood of an economy and continued failure to address its needs will invariably lead to decline, particularly in an American economy increasingly based on services and not on manufacturing and agriculture. Our competitors, such as China, India, and others, train proportionally a much larger number of engineers committed to and capable of advancing their infrastructure. This will give them an enormous advantage in facing increasingly complex economic challenges. Many of our competitors build major infrastructure in less than half the time and at less than half the cost as we do. They increasingly dominate the global infrastructure engineering and project market, a sector in which U.S. firms led not too long ago. In many Asian countries as much as 30% of engineering research funding is for infrastructure design, technology, materials, testing, and fabrication research – and that percentage is growing. There are estimates that the U.S. will have to spend as much as 5% of its GNP (or over $600b/year) for infrastructure repair, replacement, and expansion for many years to come if it wants to remain competitive in the international economy. Highways key to economic competitiveness Matthew Slaughter, Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth, 2011[Building Competitiveness, Organization of International Investment, April 12, http://www.ofii.org/news-room/ofii-press-releases/976-ofii-kicks-off-infrastructure- campaign-to-build-.html] Indeed, the Crisis and Recession have expanded America’s competitiveness challenge because so many dynamic emerging economies have sustained high growth rates in recent years. While America’s GDP fell by 2.6% in 2009, GDP in India grew by 5.7% and in China by 9.1%--rates that accelerated to about 10% in 2010. The International Monetary Fund calculates that 2010 GDP growth averaged 7.1% for all emerging and developing economies. The challenge facing America today is not just building an economic recovery. It is building an economic recovery that also advances America’s global competitiveness. A globally competitive America must fundamentally mean the success of American workers: success in creating globally competitive, high- productivity, good-paying jobs by all companies operating in America. American workers and their families need dynamic jobs with rising earnings and thus rising standards of living. AT: China will declineNo China Collapse: They will continue to grow and have a chance to overtakeAlexander Vuving, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, April 4, 2012 [ssrn-id2035188.pdf, “What is China Rising to? Assessing China’s and America’s Primacy Potentials] Contrary to some widespread beliefs, China’s unbalanced growth path is unlikely to lead to the collapse of the Chinese economy in the near future. Instead, it may even shorten China’s rise to economic primacy. If China continues its current investment- driven and export-led path, it can hardly avoid a long period of stagnation in the future. However, none of the possible triggers of recession is likely to immensely derail China’s growth in the near future. The immediate cause of China’s “lost decades” is likely to be a debt crisis precipitated by the loss of the demographic dividend in a rapidly aging population, which no longer is able to save massively to keep the banking system afloat. As this is likely to become acute in the 2030s, China will likely enter a period of stagnation in two (but not one or a half) decades from now. In the meantime, China will still have a great chance to overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy. China will continue to grow for at least another decadeArthur Kroeber, editor China Economic Quarterly, Brookings, May 2012 [Foreign Policy May 22, 2012 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/bear_in_a_china_shop] No question, China has many problems. Years of one-sided investment-driven growth have created obvious excesses and overcapacity. A weaker global economy since the 2008 financial crisis and rapidly rising labor cost at home have slowed China's vaunted export machine. Meanwhile, a massive housing bubble is slowly deflating, and the latest economic data is discouraging. Real growth in GDP slowed to an annualized rate of less than 7 percent in the first quarter of 2012, and April saw a sharp slowdown in industrial output, electricity production, bank lending, and property transactions. Is China's legendary economy in serious trouble? Not just yet. The odds are that China will navigate these shoals and continue to grow at a fairly rapid pace of around 7 percent a year for the remainder of the decade, overtaking the United States to become the world's biggest economy around 2020. That's a lot slower than the historical average of 10 percent, but still solid. China has not overinvested in its InfrastructureArthur Kroeber, editor China Economic Quarterly, Brookings, May 2012 [Foreign Policy May 22, 2012 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/bear_in_a_china_shop] And despite years of breakneck building, China's stock of fixed capital -- the total value of infrastructure, housing, and industrial plants -- is not all that large relative to either the economy or the population. Rich countries typically have a capital stock a bit more than three times their annual GDP. For China, the figure is about two and a half. And on a per capita basis, China has about as much fixed capital as Japan did in the late 1960s and less than a third of what the United States had as long ago as 1930. Further large-scale investments are still required. So China's economy can continue to grow in part based on capital spending, though a gradual transition to a consumer-led economy does need to begin soon. China Impact ExtensionsMiscalculation over Taiwan will lead to nuclear warMichael Swaine, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment, 2005 [www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=771&&prog= zch] “It is by no means certain that a severe military-political crisis over Taiwan could be contained. In such a crisis, the danger of rapid and uncontrollable escalation would probably exist, as each side sought to convey its resolve, neutralize or deflect actual military strikes, and defend against potential attacks. The dangers of this situation would be enormously aggravated by the fact that US military actions might be read by the Chinese leadership as a threat to China’s nuclear arsenal, requiring a robust response. A further danger is presented by the possibility that Taiwan might take actions that serve to escalate the crisis, either inadvertently or by design.” China is a unique and serious threat to US economic dominanceGideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011 [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?] This time it's different. It's certainly true that America has been through cycles of declinism in the past. Campaigning for the presidency in 1960, John F. Kennedy complained, "American strength relative to that of the Soviet Union has been slipping, and communism has been advancing steadily in every area of the world." Ezra Vogel's Japan as Number One was published in 1979, heralding a decade of steadily rising paranoia about Japanese manufacturing techniques and trade policies. In the end, of course, the Soviet and Japanese threats to American supremacy proved chimerical. So Americans can be forgiven if they greet talk of a new challenge from China as just another case of the boy who cried wolf. But a frequently overlooked fact about that fable is that the boy was eventually proved right. The wolf did arrive -- and China is the wolf. The Chinese challenge to the United States is more serious for both economic and demographic reasons. The Soviet Union collapsed because its economic system was highly inefficient, a fatal flaw that was disguised for a long time because the USSR never attempted to compete on world markets. China, by contrast, has proved its economic prowess on the global stage. Its economy has been growing at 9 to 10 percent a year, on average, for roughly three decades. It is now the world's leading exporter and its biggest manufacturer, and it is sitting on more than $2.5 trillion of foreign reserves. Chinese goods compete all over the world. This is no Soviet-style economic basket case. Japan, of course, also experienced many years of rapid economic growth and is still an export powerhouse. But it was never a plausible candidate to be No. 1. The Japanese population is less than half that of the United States, which means that the average Japanese person would have to be more than twice as rich as the average American before Japan's economy surpassed America's. That was never going to happen. By contrast, China's population is more than four times that of the United States. The famous projection by Goldman Sachs that China's economy will be bigger than that of the United States by 2027 was made before the 2008 economic crash. At the current pace, China could be No. 1 well before then. Impact Extension: US Economic HegemonyGlobal power is a zero-sum game determined by economic powerGideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011 [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?] And when it comes to the broader geopolitical picture, the world of the future looks even more like a zero-sum game, despite the gauzy rhetoric of globalization that comforted the last generation of American politicians. For the United States has been acting as if the mutual interests created by globalization have repealed one of the oldest laws of international politics: the notion that rising players eventually clash with established powers. In fact, rivalry between a rising China and a weakened America is now apparent across a whole range of issues, from territorial disputes in Asia to human rights. Economic dominance is key to global powerLeslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations, 2010 [Fletcher Forum of World Affairsvol.34:2 summer 2010 http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/34-2pdfs/Gelb.pdf] Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do something they do not want to do by means of your resources and your position. It was always that. There is no such thing in my mind as “soft” power or “hard” power or “smart” power or “dumb” power. It is people who are hard or soft or smart or dumb. Power is power. And people use it wisely or poorly. Now, what has changed is the composition of power in international affairs. For almost all of history, international power was achieved in the form of military power and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it has become more and more economic. So power consists of economic power, military power, and diplomatic power, but the emphasis has shifted from military power (for almost all of history) to now, more economic power. And, as President Obama said in his West Point speech several months ago, our economy is the basis of our international power in general and our military power in particular. That is where it all comes from. Whether other states listen to us and act on what we say depends a good deal on their perception of the strength of the American economy. A big problem for us in the last few years has been the perception that our economy is in decline. US Economic decline threatens US influenceGideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011 [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?] China's economic prowess is already allowing Beijing to challenge American influence all over the world. The Chinese are the preferred partners of many African governments and the biggest trading partner of other emerging powers, such as Brazil and South Africa. China is also stepping in to buy the bonds of financially strapped members of the eurozone, such as Greece and Portugal. And China is only the largest part of a bigger story about the rise of new economic and political players. America's traditional allies in Europe -- Britain, France, Italy, even Germany -- are slipping down the economic ranks. New powers are on the rise: India, Brazil, Turkey. They each have their own foreign-policy preferences, which collectively constrain America's ability to shape the world. Think of how India and Brazil sided with China at the global climate- change talks. Or the votes by Turkey and Brazil against America at the United Nations on sanctions against Iran. That is just a taste of things to come. Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents warDeclining US power risks many global war scenariosZalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, Feb 8, 2011 [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security- zalmaykhalilzad?pg=2] If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. US Hegemony decreases the risk of warRichard Maher, PhD. candidate, Brown University, ORBIS, March 2011 [ORBIS, Winter 2011 Volume 55, Issue 1 p. 59] To say that the end of unquestioned preeminence may be good for the United States is counterintuitive. Power matters in international politics, and preeminence has produced a number of benefits for the United States (and its allies): security, especially from attack by other states, and the absence of power competition more generally; relative order and stability, particularly the decreasing frequency of inter-state war; prosperity and unparalleled wealth creation, and greater freedom of action and influence over events. Preeminence, by definition, entails few constraints to the projection of power and influence abroad. By virtue of its position, other countries naturally look to the United States for leadership, on everything from Middle East peace to climate change. All other things being equal, preeminence clearly is preferable to a position of subservience, lack of agency, and weakness. American Hegemony continues to decrease threat of dangerous warsBradley Thayer, assoc prof, Missouri State Univ, The National Interest 2006 [In Defense of Primacy, National Interest, Nov/Dec 2006 Issue 86] In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents warAmerican Hegemony keeps nuclear powers from catastrophic warsRobert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007 [Policy Review No. 144, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy- review/article/6136] The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 347.52 Kb. Share with your friends:
|