Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China


NC/1NR Global Economy #1--Investment High Now Extensions



Download 2.62 Mb.
Page10/144
Date18.10.2016
Size2.62 Mb.
#2905
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   144

2NC/1NR Global Economy #1--Investment High Now Extensions



They say US-China Investment is low now , but

[GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]



  1. Extend our Morrison evidence.

[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME]

It’s much better than their Diplomat evidence because: [PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME]

[CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]:

(it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts)

(their evidence is not logical/contradicts itself) (history proves it to be true)

(their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument)

( ) (their evidence supports our argument)

[WRITE IN YOUR OWN!]
[EXPLAIN HOW YOUR OPTION IS TRUE BELOW]

Our Morrison evidence has an insane amount of facts about US and Chinese economies. It says Total U.S.- China trade rose from $2 billion in 1979 to $591 billion in 2014. China is currently the United States’ second-largest trading partner, its third-largest export market, and its biggest source of imports. These numbers are pretty clear that trade is high.

[EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW]



This matters because: the US and China trade enough to fix the economy. There is no need for the aff because the status quo solves the problem and their impact won’t happen.

  1. China is breaking records for investments in the U.S.



Voice of America, April 2016 [News organization, “Why China is Investing More Money in the US”, April 27, http://www.voanews.com/content/chinese-investiment-in-the-united-states-surge/3304768.html]
HONG KONG— Chinese investment in the United States is expected to break records this year, as massive amounts of money continue to flow from China. Chinese companies looking to expand and merge with U.S. firms are expected to invest $20 billion to $30 billion in many sectors. Sean Miner oversees the China program at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and said this is good news for the U.S. economy. “It’s going to bring thousands of direct and indirect jobs," the company says. Officially as the composition of the Chinese investment in the U.S. changes now, around two-thirds of that investment is in services, from entertainment, health care, IT and financial services. Chinese companies are not just going to merge with these firms, purchase these firms, but also create new investment, improve this process.” China invested $11.9 billion in the United States in 2014; investment grew to $15 billion last year.
  1. Investment between countries high now



Morrison, 2015 [Wayne, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance, “China-U.S. Trade Issues”, December 15, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33536.pdf]
At the end of 2014, the stock of Chinese FDI in the United States on a historical-cost basis (i.e., the book value), was estimated by BEA at $9.5 billion (up 12.4% over the previous year), making China the 22nd largest overall source of U.S. FDI inflows through 2014.36 The stock of U.S. FDI in China (on a historical-cost basis,) through 2014 was estimated at $65.8 billion (up 9.7% over the previous year), making China the 17th largest destination of U.S. FDI.37 In 2013, total sales of foreign affiliates of U.S. multinational corporations were $364 billion, and such firms employed 1.7 million workers. Chinese-invested firms had $10.6 million in sales in 2012 (most recent year available) in the United States and employed 14,400 workers. The Rhodium Group, a private consulting firm, estimates Chinese FDI in the United States to be significantly higher than BEA estimates. The Rhodium Group notes that: “Official data often exhibit a 1-2 year time lag and do not capture major trends, due to problems such as significant round tripping and trans-shipping of investments.” For example, Rhodium’s approach is to calculate the full value of a Chinese acquisition in the year it was made and to attribute that acquisition to China if it was made by a Chinese entity, regardless of where the financing of the deal originated from (such as through Hong Kong and Caribbean offshore centers, which often occurs). The Rhodium Group estimates that Chinese FDI flows to the United States in 2014 totaled $11.9 billion and that the stock through 2014 was $47.6 billion (see Figure 7).38 China’s official data on FDI flows with the United States differ from U.S. data, due largely to different methodologies used.39 Chinese data report the stock of U.S. FDI in China through 2014 at $27.1 billion, and the flow of FDI to the United States in 2014 at $5.2 billion. China’s reported annual FDI flows to and from the United States for 2005-2014 are shown in Figure 8. These data would indicate that Chinese FDI in the United States has exceeded FDI in China annually since 2012, which some analysts contend is an indicator that the United States is more “open” to Chinese investment than China is for U.S. investors. As indicated in the text box, a number of Chinese firms have invested in the United States in recent years.

2NC/1NR Global Economy #2—Economic Decline Does Not Cause War

They say Economic Decline causes war but

[GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]


  1. Extend our analytic evidence.

[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME]

It’s much better than their evidence because:

[PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME]

[CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]:

(it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts)

(their evidence is not logical/contradicts itself) (history proves it to be true)

(their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument)

( ) (their evidence supports our argument)

[WRITE IN YOUR OWN!]
[EXPLAIN HOW YOUR OPTION IS TRUE BELOW]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW]

and this reason matters because: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




  1. No impact to another recession.


Keystone Research, 2011 [Main Street Newsletter, “3 Ways the Next Recession Will Be Different”, http://keystoneresearch.org/media-center/media-coverage/3-ways-next-recession-will-be-different]
All of this has only renewed concerns among analysts and average Americans that the U.S. would suffer a dreaded double-dip recession, but according to several economists MainStreet spoke with, even if we do enter into another recession later this year or in early 2012, it won’t be nearly as damaging as the Great Recession of 2008.“If there is another recession, I think it wouldn’t be as severe and it would also be shorter,” says Gus Faucher, senior economist at Moody’s Analytics. “And the reason for that is a lot of the imbalances that drove the previous recession have been corrected.” As Faucher and others point out, banks are better capitalized now, the housing market has shed (however painfully) many delinquent homeowners who signed up forsubprime mortgages before the recession and U.S. corporations have trimmed their payrolls and are sitting on ample cash reserves to help weather another storm. At the same time, consumers have gradually improved their own balance sheets by spending less and paying off more of their debt.
  1. Economic Decline does not cause war—history proves it



Ferguson, 2006 [Niall, MA, D.Phil., is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct, “The Next War of the World”]
Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.


Download 2.62 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   144




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page