Port Maintenance Aff Classic bt file completed by the following hard working students
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- US competitiveness low- infrastructure key
- IL – Exports Key
Adv. 1 CompetitivenessCompetitiveness Low NowCompetitiveness down in the status quo due to poor planning – harms national security and international relationsCenter for American Progress, 10 – public policy think tank (John Podesta, Sarah Rosen Wartell, and Jitinder Kohli, A Focus on Competitiveness: Restructuring Policymaking for Results, December 2010, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/pdf/competitiveness.pdf, page 8: A lack of long-term coordinated planning for economic competitiveness) // EK The United States lacks a strong, interagency planning process that ensures our ability to step back, assess risks and opportunities, and develop responses to global economic challenges. While all federal agencies engage in some form of strategic planning, few perform long-term planning and so-called “horizon scanning,” or deep assessments of economic strengths and weaknesses that include explicit future goals and policy implementation plans. And no single agency takes a comprehensive look at the global economic future and our place in it—that is, a look beyond the immediate horizon to the vast array of issues that implicate so many different agencies across government. The absence of long-term economic competitiveness planning contrasts with the practices of the national security, international relations, and intelligence communities, where Congress and executive agency practices mandate a horizon review, a strategy, and specific implementation plans. US competitiveness low- infrastructure keyBrainard, 8 – Chair in International Economics, Vice President and Director (Bernard, “Infrastructure: Time to Compete to Win”, Brookings, 7/22, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2008/07/22-infrastructure-brainard)//DG Next month, American athletes will return from the historic Olympic Games in China with medals and a tangible idea of what it means to take infrastructure and the long-term prosperity of a country seriously. When our athletes land in Beijing, they’ll find that the new terminal at Beijing Airport is larger than all of Heathrow Airport, the world’s third busiest. China’s investment in rail infrastructure – almost $200 billion from 2006 to 2010 – is the beginning of the largest expansion of railway capacity undertaken anywhere since the 19th century. And in just the last 15 years, China has built a highway network that rivals what it took America 40 years to build. These investments reflect an unprecedented shift in the balance of global economic power that is fundamentally altering the contours of how we compete in a global economy. For two generations, the world economy was defined by only seven countries -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the United States -- which produced two-thirds of world output. But the last five years have seen the beginning of a dramatic change as major emerging economies, from China to Brazil and India, grow rapidly, aided by governments that make investments for the long-run, like in infrastructure. From 2002 to 2007, the G-7 share of world output fell from 65% to 57% and, according to Brookings scholar Homi Kharas, will likely decline to 37% of world output by 2030. Meanwhile, the major emerging economies’ share of global output jumped from 7% to 11% and is set to hit 32% by 2030, almost catching-up to the G-7.To remain globally competitive, the U.S. needs to invest for the long-term in infrastructure, among other efforts, as we did under President Roosevelt with rural electrification and under President Eisenhower with the creation of the Interstate Highway System. Roads, bridges, railroads, airports and ports form the connective tissue of our economy. They allow goods to move rapidly from one part of the country to another -- and from the U.S. to the rest of the world. By reducing the costs of transportation, they make our economy more efficient and our exports more competitive. For too long, we have been badly neglecting investments in infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our rail systems a C-, our air traffic infrastructure the grade of D+, our roads a D and our navigable waterways a D-. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that infrastructure spending is twenty percent below what would be required to simply stay in place, let alone to begin to repair the damage of years of neglect and move forward. When time is money, delays associated with weak infrastructure reduce our export competitiveness. Take ports, which process ships that carry over a quarter of U.S. exports by value, and almost three-quarters by weight. Rail infrastructure within port terminals is often antiquated, leading to breakdowns and backups. A shortage of staging area leads to congestion as shippers struggle to maneuver their goods. Inadequate IT systems cause shippers to send cargo to ports that are already at capacity, exacerbating congestion at peak times. And that’s only the delays within the ports. The Government Accountability Office warns that the increasing congestion around ports represents a threat to our ability to move goods for export. IL – Exports KeyExports key to economic competitiveness – exports have dropped in recent years and the economic effects are being seen Istrate et al, 10 – senior research analyst and associate fellow with the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative (Emilia, "Export Nation: How U.S. Metros Lead National Export Growth and Boost Competitiveness", July, Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/7/26%20mountain%20exports%20muro/0726_exports_istrate_rothwell_katz.pdf) // EK For the most of the last 20 years, the United States has witnessed strong economic growth and low unemployment in comparison with other developed countries.18 Yet, the U.S. economy was affected by the wide fluctuations at the end of two business cycles, the so called IT bubble of the late 1990s and the housing bubble that ended between sometime during 2006 and 2007. Meanwhile, in 2006 household income inequality reached its post-World War II peak.19 Real median income in 2008 fell below 1999 levels.20 These three conditions—a tepid rise in living standards, increasing inequality, and bubble economies—are embedded in the consumption driven American economy. In 1982, U.S. residents spent 86 cents of every dollar of after-tax income, but the intensity of consumption grew steadily such that by 2005, that share had reached 95 cents of every dollar.21 All this spending depleted savings, which dropped precipitously over the time period from over 10 percent in the early 1980s to just 1.7 percent in 2005.22 At the same time, an increasing share of consumption involved the purchase of imports. While the value of U.S. total imports was eight percent higher than the value of U.S. total exports in 1982, by 2005, the difference was 36 percent, the highest gap since 1960.23 With minimal household savings, domestic investment declined over the last two decades relative to the size of the economy. The United States invested about 7.3 percent of GDP in the 2000s, much less than the 9.4 percent rate of the 1970s.24 Moreover, from 2000 to 2007, private manufacturing investment as a share of GDP was just 0.26 percent per year compared to 0.37 percent during the 1990s. At the same time, foreign investment compensated to some extent, though more in the real estate sector. For example, Chinese holdings represented 6 percent of all federal agency debt and 29 percent of foreign-held agency debt in 2007, making China the largest foreign holder of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt.25
There are a number of potential explanations for why the United States under-exports. First, the dollar is over-valued relative to the currencies of a number of important U.S. trading partners.29 In addition, U.S. companies have been focused on catering to the large and growing U.S market. About one percent of U.S. companies exported in 2008.30 It seems that many small and medium companies lack information regarding exports and perceive exporting as a risky endeavor.31 Finally, many countries still put up significant trade barriers against U.S. companies. In the absence of free trade agreements with emerging countries, U.S. companies had additional incentives to locate production abroad in order to take advantage of these foreign markets. For example, while nominal total exports grew by 10 percent annually between 1994 and 2007, nominal sales of U.S. affiliates located in foreign countries increased by almost 18 percent a year during the same period.32 Whatever the reasons why the United States is less export-oriented than other countries, increasing exports relative to imports can be part of the solution to many long-standing difficulties. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|