Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China
AC AT Solvency #2—Diplomacy High Now
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2AC AT Solvency 3—China will say “No”
- 2AC AT: China Will Punish the US Economically
- 1NC The Global Economy Frontline
- Solvency Turn: BIT outsources American jobs and hurts the economy
- No Impact: China is economically fine—your cards exaggerate
2AC AT Solvency #2—Diplomacy High NowThey say diplomatic cooperation is high now , but [GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME] It’s much better than their argument 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!]
This matters because: If our evidence assumes their evidence, ours is much better. It must be true because our author knows our opponent’s argument. Then, we still need the BIT in order to fix our advantage. 2AC AT Solvency #3—China will say “No”They say China will say no to the BIT, but [GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
[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 WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW] and this reason matters because: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2AC AT: China Will Punish the US Economically
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] In the past, some analysts have raised concerns that China’s large holdings of U.S. debt securities could give China leverage over U.S. foreign policy, including trade policy. They argue, for example, that China might attempt to sell (or threaten to sell) a large share of its U.S. debt securities as punishment over a policy dispute, which could damage the U.S. economy. Others counter that China’s holdings of U.S. debt give it very little practical leverage over the United States. They argue that, given China’s economic dependency on a stable and growing U.S. economy, and its substantial holdings of U.S. securities, any attempt to try to sell a large share of those holdings would likely damage both the U.S. and Chinese economies. Such a move could also cause the U.S. dollar to sharply depreciate against global currencies, which could reduce the value of China’s remaining holdings of U.S. dollar assets. Analysts also note that, while China is the largest foreign owner of U.S. Treasury securities, those holdings are equal to only 6.8% of total U.S. public debt (as of December 2014). Finally, it is argued that, as long as China continues to largely peg the RMB to the U.S. dollar, it has little choice but to purchase U.S. dollar assets in order to maintain that peg. Bilateral Investment Treaty Negative 1NC The Global Economy Frontline
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] U.S.-China economic ties have expanded substantially over the past three decades. 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. In addition, according to one estimate, sales by foreign affiliates of U.S. firms in China totaled $364 billion in 2013. Many U.S. firms view participation in China’s market as critical to staying globally competitive. General Motors (GM), for example, which has invested heavily in China, sold more cars in China than in the United States each year from 2010 to 2014. In addition, U.S. imports of low-cost goods from China greatly benefit U.S. consumers, and U.S. firms that use China as the final point of assembly for their products, or use Chinese-made inputs for production in the United States, are able to lower costs. China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities ($1.26 trillion as of September 2015). China’s purchases of U.S. government debt help keep U.S. interest rates low.
Dayen, March 2016 [David, contributing writer to Salon.com who also writes for The Intercept, The New Republic, and The Fiscal Times, “The Job-Killing Trade Deal You’ve Never Heard Of: The China Bilateral Investment Treaty”, March 18, http://prospect.org/article/job-killing-trade-deal-you’ve-never-heard-china-bilateral-investment-treaty] The U.S. has implemented 41 BITs over the years, as well as investment chapters in a dozen free-trade agreements. But the U.S. already attracts more foreign direct investment than any country in the world, with $168 billion flowing in just in 2012. That includes investments from countries that until now have lacked the protections of a BIT, like China. “It’s pitched as a way to promote investment,” said Celeste Drake, trade and globalization policy specialist at the AFL-CIO. “We’re one of the top countries for foreign investment anyway. We don’t need to give away rights for foreign investors.” Few investors have the capital to undertake and manage businesses overseas. Invariably, large multinational corporations, or investment vehicles like hedge funds and private equity firms, engage in foreign direct investment. And a BIT offers them the ability to lock in profits while neutralizing the risks that go along with investing abroad. For example, U.S. companies operating in China encounter local corruption, preferential treatment for their domestic producers, intellectual property theft, and ever-changing regulatory demands. The BIT sweeps away such hurdles, and allows foreign investors to use ISDS to recoup lost profits if foreign governments use those maneuvers to hamper their business. It effectively removes American companies’ one big motivation for keeping manufacturing stateside—our relatively stable judicial and regulatory systems and rule of law. If companies can get all that guaranteed in China, there’s nothing keeping their factories here. The BIT, then, is a recipe for more outsourcing. China currently protects many of its industries by excluding foreign investment in certain sectors. The key to the BIT is what’s known in trade deal parlance as the “negative list”—a list of which sectors would stay excluded. U.S. corporations want to whittle down that list and pry open more sectors where they can invest in China, and subsequently move production overseas. On the flip side, there’s already substantial Chinese investment in the U.S.—more than U.S. investment in China, in fact—but we don’t have good information on its impact. Many Chinese companies are state-owned or state-influenced, subsidized from home, and freed from having to run an immediate profit. Michael Wessel, a commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, warns that Chinese-subsidized firms could squeeze domestic competitors by undercutting them on price. Despite this uncertainty, Wessel contends that not single case study on Chinese-invested firms has been undertaken by an independent expert. “We have no idea what Chinese companies are doing in the U.S.,” he says. “Not all investment has [the] same impact. Our negotiators are flying blind.”
Reuters, 2015 [“China sees steady economic growth of 'around' 7 percent in third quarter”, September 25, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-gdp-idUSKCN0RP0IV20150925] China's economic growth will be largely stable in the third quarter as the impact from a stock market plunge will be limited, the National Bureau of Statistics said on Friday. Bureau spokesman Sheng Laiyun also defended the accuracy of Chinese data - amid widespread skepticism - saying that the 7 percent growth pace reported for the first half was "generally in line with" changes in the country's power consumption, rail freight and bank lending in that period. Chinese officials have been trying to reassure global markets that Beijing is able to manage the world's second-largest economy, after a shock devaluation of the yuan and a stock market plunge fanned fears of a sharp growth slowdown. Sheng said China's economic growth in the third quarter will not derivate much from the 7 percent annual pace Beijing reported for the second quarter. "Judging from indicators in July and August, we feel that the economic trend is still stable, there may be some deviation, up or down, but it won't be big," he told a briefing. China's economic growth remains within a "reasonable range" and the government will be able to achieve its annual growth target of "around" 7 percent this year, despite some downward pressures, Sheng said. SLOWDOWN FEARS A run of downbeat data, including factory output and investment, showed the economy may have lost further momentum in the third quarter, raising the possibility that full-year growth rate may fall below 7 percent. Sheng said his "personal view" was that full-year growth between 6.5 percent and 7.5 percent would be considered as "around" 7 percent. The bureau is due to publish third-quarter GDP data on Oct. 19. Sheng also said that China's survey-based unemployment rate in August stood at around 5.1 percent. Global investors and policymakers are on edge over China after the U.S. central bank a week ago held off from raising interest rates, saying it was unsure if international problems, and China's slowdown in particular, will hurt the U.S. recovery. An interest rate hike in the United States will have only limited impact on China, Sheng said. He said China's economic slowdown was partly due to weaker global demand and expectations of the U.S. rate rise have contributed to the global financial market volatility. "The United States should not exaggerate the impact of China's growth slowdown on the global economy," Sheng said. 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:
|