Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Contention Two: Harms - Economy
- Manufacturing jobs are critical for a strong and prosperous U.S. economy
- A strong U.S. economy with good jobs is key to global economic stability
- Foreign debt causes global economic decline and nuclear World War III
- Contention Three: Solvency
Currency Manipulation 1ACFirst, the PLAN: The United States Federal Government should file a complaint with the World Trade Organization regarding currency manipulation by the People’s Republic of ChinaContention One: Inherency
Bergsten, 2015 February 25, Mr. Bergsten is a senior fellow and director emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/02/25/currency-manipulation-why-something-must-be-done/#4ad6505a31c8 Currency manipulation occurs when countries sell their own currencies in the foreign exchange markets, usually against dollars, to keep their exchange rates weak and the dollar strong. These countries thereby subsidize their exports and raise the price of their imports, sometimes by as much as 30-40%. They strengthen their international competitive positions, increase their trade surpluses and generate domestic production and employment at the expense of the United States and others. About 20 countries, most notably China, have engaged in such practices over the past decade at an annual rate that has averaged $1 trillion in recent years. The U.S. trade deficit has been several hundred billion dollars a year higher as a result and we lost several million additional jobs during the Great Recession. Currency manipulation is, by far, the world’s most protectionist international economic policy in the 21st century, but neither the U.S. government nor the responsible international institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, have mounted effective responses. Congress has therefore been expressing great concern over the issue and wants to take the occasion of the forthcoming legislation on new U.S. trade agreements, most notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to promote decisive counteraction. Dan Ikenson’s critique of my views on implementing effective new constraints on such competitive devaluation policies (“Currency Manipulation and the TransPacific Partnership: What Art Laffer, Fred Bergsten and Other Hawks Get Wrong,” January 26) contains several egregious errors that negate his rejection of my policy recommendations. Ikenson writes in the current context of whether the TPP and other pending U.S. trade agreements should include enforceable currency disciplines, but he opposes any action to deal with manipulation of any type so I will respond to his broader arguments. First, Ikenson excuses the foreign manipulation on the grounds that currency changes do not have much impact on trade flows, citing the continued growth of China’s bilateral surplus with the U.S. But he ignores the fact that the 40% rise of the RMB over the past ten years, along with China’s rapid economic growth, has reduced China’s global current account surplus from 10% of its GDP in 2007 to less than 3% today (which is still much too large as China has continued to manipulate). Currency changes matter hugely for trade balances and the manipulators know it—that is why they manipulate. Contention Two: Harms - Economy
Washington Times, 2015 11/13, Madison Gesiotto, “The negative effects of China’s currency manipulation explained”, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/13/madison-gesiotto-negative-effects-chinas-currency-/ For years, China has devalued its currency in order to manipulate both the Chinese economy as well as the global economy. By devaluing its currency, China has caused its exports to become cheaper for other nations and has enabled itself to undercut its competitors. China’s actions have also affected the price of imports from other countries, causing them to become more expensive. These high-priced imports have made it hard for other nations to compete in China, which has ultimately stimulated business for local Chinese companies and negatively impacted countries like the United States of America. In fact, there has been a dramatic increase in trade imbalance between China and the U.S. for the last 15 years. In 2001, the U.S. imported approximately $102 billion from China and exported about $19 billion, leaving a trade deficit of about $83 billion, which at the time was extremely alarming when compared to the 1985 deficit of just $6 million. PROMOTED CONTENT For Faster Networks, AT&T Calls for More Data, More Innovation AT&T Newsroom 7 Tricks For How To Learn Any Language In 1 Week Babbel Recommended by Unfortunately, the trade deficit rise did not stop there. In fact, it rose almost every single year since 2001, resulting in a trade deficit of over $343 billion at the end of 2014. And 2015 has proven to be no better, with about $357 billion in imports from China calculated at the end of September and only $83 billion in exports, leaving an over $273 billion trade deficit with three months remaining in the year. Furthermore, China’s currency manipulation has had a serious negative impact on the American workforce. The Economic Policy Institute estimated the cost in American jobs of the Chinese currency devaluation to be 3.2 million between 2001 and 2013. Others have estimated this number to be even higher. And with fewer Americans working, the U.S. government generates less income tax revenue and is forced to payout higher amounts to help the unemployed, both of which worsen the already ridiculously high U.S. debt. It is clear that America has suffered alarming consequences as a result of China’s currency manipulation and will continue to stomach these costs if something is not done to stop China from continuing to devalue its currency. It’s time for America to wake up and fight back against China to lower the trade deficit and save American jobs and businesses.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012 5/7, Economics & Statistics Administration United States Department of Commerce http://www.esa.doc.gov/reports/benefits-manufacturing-jobs The role of the manufacturing sector in the U.S. economy is more prominent than is suggested solely by its output or number of workers. It is a cornerstone of innovation in our economy: manufacturing firms fund most domestic corporate research and development (R&D), and the resulting innovations and productivity growth improve our standard of living. Manufacturing also drives U.S. exports and is crucial for a strong national defense. The current economic recovery has witnessed a welcome return in manufacturing job growth. Since its January 2010 low to April 2012, manufacturing employment has expanded by 489,000 jobs or 4 percent1— the strongest cyclical rebound since the dual recessions in the early 1980s. From mid-2009 through the end of February 2012, the number of job openings surged by over 200 percent, to 253,000 openings. 2 Coupled with attrition in the coming years from Baby Boomer retirements, this bodes well for continued hiring opportunities in the manufacturing sector.3 The rebound in manufacturing is important, not only as a sign of renewed strength, but also because manufacturing jobs are often cited as “good jobs:” they pay well, provide good benefits, and manufacturing workers are less likely to quit than workers in other private sector industries.4 In fact, our analysis finds evidence in support of these claims. Specifically, this report shows that: On average, hourly wages and salaries for manufacturing jobs were $29.75 an hour in 2010 compared to $27.47 an hour for non-manufacturing jobs. Total hourly compensation, which includes employer-provided benefits, was $38.27 for workers in manufacturing jobs and $32.84 for workers in non-manufacturing jobs, a 17 percent premium. After controlling for demographic, geographic, and job characteristics, manufacturing jobs experienced a significant 7 percent manufacturing wage premium. In other words, all else being equal, workers in manufacturing tend to earn 7 percent more per hour than their counterparts in other private industries. Like manufacturing workers, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workers are catalysts for innovation in the economy. Not surprisingly, there is considerable overlap between the STEM and manufacturing workforces, with nearly one-third of college educated manufacturing workers holding a STEM job. The educational attainment of the manufacturing workforce is rising steadily. Today, more than half of manufacturing jobs are held by persons with at least some college education. Manufacturing workers are more likely than other workers to have significant, highly-valued employer-provided benefits, including medical insurance and retirement benefits. Taking these into account increases the manufacturing compensation premium to 15 percent. The size of the premium, including or excluding benefits, increases consistently with educational attainment of a worker. Furthermore, the compensation premium has risen over the past decade across all levels of educational attainment. In sum, manufacturing jobs provide benefits to workers with higher overall compensation than other sectors, and to the economy through innovation that boosts our nation’s standard of living.
Washington Times, 2010 [ Erica Werner-Associated Press http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/10/obama-strong-us-economy-key-global-recovery/ SEOUL (AP) — President Obama said a strong, job-creating economy in the United States would be the country’s most important contribution to a global recovery as he pleaded with world leaders to work together despite sharp differences. Arriving in South Korea on Wednesday for the G-20 summit, Mr. Obama is expected to find himself on the defensive because of plans by the Federal Reserve to buy $600 billion in long-term government bonds to try to drive down interest rates, spur lending and boost the U.S. economy. Some other nations complain that the move will give American goods an unfair advantage. In a letter sent Tuesday to leaders of the Group of 20 major economic powers, Mr. Obama defended the steps his administration and Congress have taken to help the economy. “The United States will do its part to restore strong growth, reduce economic imbalances and calm markets,” he wrote. “A strong recovery that creates jobs, income and spending is the most important contribution the United States can make to the global recovery.” Mr. Obama outlined the work he had done to repair the nation’s financial system and enact reforms after the worst recession in decades. He implored the G-20 leaders to seize the opportunity to ensure a strong and durable recovery. The summit gets under way on Thursday. “When all nations do their part — emerging no less than advanced, surplus no less than deficit — we all benefit from higher growth,” the president said in the letter. The divisions between the economic powers was evident when China’s leading credit rating agency lowered its view of the United States, a response to the Federal Reserve’s decision to buy more Treasury bonds. Major exporting countries such as China and Germany are complaining that the Federal Reserve’s action drives down the dollar’s value and gives U.S. goods an edge in world markets.
Hamer, 2010 3/6 Dr. Eberhard Hamer, retired Professor of Economics at Fachhochschule Bielefeld Germany “Increasing Indications for a Third World War,” http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=1012 Due to the fact that the US has assumed the bank debts and added them to the national budget and their already extreme increase in national debts – one billion dollars worth foreign credits is needed per day –, the biggest financial crisis since World War II has arrived. If the cash flow from abroad ceased or foreign countries decided to escape the dollar, the US would be bankrupt. Nevertheless, the US is not making sufficient efforts to reduce their growing national debts with cost-cutting measures. Neither do their raise taxes to generate more income, nor do they try to cut their budget, especially not their enormously grown military budget. The US has employed 200 000 soldiers in combat missions worldwide. Therefore nobody understood when the biggest warlord in the world, despite increased force levels, obtained the Nobel Peace Prize. A possible explanation: he received the prize as a precaution, because it depends mainly on him if there is a war in Iran or not. In history, politicians who were economically at an end have often opted for war as a last resort to maintain power. This has even be truer for a country in a crisis, which sees war as a way out of an economic crisis. This is how the US surmounted the biggest depression of the 20th century by entering World War I, as well as the Great Depression by entering World War II, and now they could try to solve their third crisis in the same way. We should not forget that both world wars enabled the US not only to overcome their enormous national debts, but they also developed into the leading economic power of the world. The temptation to go the same way a third time is big. Furthermore, Israel has positioned the atomic submarines delivered from Germany with nuclear missiles in front of Iran, and in Georgia they not only rebuilt a nuclear missile position which was destroyed by Russia one and a half years ago, and which faces Iran, but fortified them with 90 US missile experts. Military preparations are already advanced. Although the US military has not yet succeeded in “pacifying” the two neighbouring states Iraq and Afghanistan, they have practiced their biggest military concentration in the world in combat mission. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee have assessed the situation correctly, namely that a war against Iran cannot happen without the US president’s approval, the least without the approval of a Nobel peace prize winner. However, the pressure from banks, the oil billionaires, the arms industry, the military and the Israel lobby could force the US to come into war when Israel carried out the first strike against Iran and the above mentioned powers wanted to secure their interests. The US is not only the country with the highest debts in the world but along with their currency their empire decays. The world’s allegedly “only superpower” is at the moment imploding in the same manner the Russian did 20 years ago. With some kicks the Chinese have already told the US president quite clearly that they do not acknowledge their leadership any longer. Therefore, if Israel decided to strike, the US president would face the terrible choice between sinking further into the quagmire of financial-, economic and social crisis or seeking the solution of a world war, which has made the US a winner twice already. The danger of a world war has never been greater since World War II. Therefore, increasing warnings to the US mostly from a group of European intellectuals for more than a year have been justified. However, we cannot prevent it. A war in Iran would not remain a local event even if it was only led with missiles at the beginning. On Iran’s side the Chinese would intervene directly or indirectly and the Russians possibly as well to prevent the US from approaching their borders and becoming too dominant. On the side of Israel and the US the NATO states would be obliged to help, especially when they had sworn Nibelung loyalty before. Therefore, we in Europe have to brace ourselves for a participation in a war. Merkel’s government might find a war as the last political way out of their mess after the bailouts, public insolvency, the looming financial collapse of the social systems, and social unrest as a result of missing genuine corrections. War is coming up. The next few months will decide if we will be drawn into a Third World War or if we can escape this danger. Contention Three: Solvency
PIIE, 2012 C. Fred Bergsten, senior fellow and director emeritus, was the founding director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (formerly the Institute for International Economics) from 1981 through 2012, Peterson Institute for International Economics, https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/currency-manipulation-us-economy-and-global-economic-order More than 20 countries have increased their aggregate foreign exchange reserves and other official foreign assets by an annual average of nearly $1 trillion in recent years. This buildup—mainly through intervention in the foreign exchange markets—keeps the currencies of the interveners substantially undervalued, thus boosting their international competitiveness and trade surpluses. The corresponding trade deficits are spread around the world, but the largest share of the loss centers on the United States, whose trade deficit has increased by $200 billion to $500 billion per year. The United States has lost 1 million to 5 million jobs as a result of this foreign currency manipulation. The United States must eliminate or at least sharply reduce its large trade deficit to accelerate growth and restore full employment. The way to do so, at no cost to the US budget, is to insist that other countries stop manipulating their currencies and permit the dollar to regain a competitive level. A US strategy to terminate currency manipulation, especially if undertaken together with some of the other countries that are adversely affected by the practice (including Australia, Canada, the euro area, Brazil, India, Mexico, and numerous developing countries), would be fully compatible with its international obligations. The proposed coalition should first seek voluntary agreement from the manipulators to sharply reduce or eliminate their intervention. If they do not do so, however, the United States should adopt four new policy measures against their currency activities: (1) undertake countervailing currency intervention (CCI) against countries with convertible currencies by buying amounts of their currencies equal to the amounts of dollars they are buying themselves, to neutralize the impact on exchange rates, (2) tax the earnings on, or restrict further purchases of, dollar assets acquired by intervening countries with inconvertible currencies (where CCI could therefore not be fully effective) to penalize them for building up these positions, (3) treat manipulated exchange rates as export subsidies for purposes of levying countervailing import duties, and (4) hopefully with other adversely affected countries, bring a case against the manipulators in the World Trade Organization that would authorize more wide-ranging trade retaliation. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|