Skfta da 1nc 1nc skfta da

Impact Turn- Economy

Nuclear war.

None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Ext: Impact Turn: Econ

SKFTA is bad- several reasons including loss of more than 150,000 jobs.

Hindrey, Jr. 11 (Leo Hindery, Jr., July 12, 2011, HuffPost Politics, “These three Free Trade Agreements are Clunkers—and They Need Some Courage”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hindery-jr/these-three-free-trade-ag_b_895503.html)

No perspective on trade is more important than "net exports", yet no perspective has been more overlooked over the years, most recently by President Obama's misguided commitment to doubling "gross" (rather than "net") exports over the next five years and by these three FTAs. Specific problems with each proposed, most notably the one with Korea, include the following: The Korea-US (KORUS) Free Trade Agreement: • Notwithstanding KORUS, the Korean market will remain one of the toughest markets in the world for the U.S. to compete in because of tariffs and myriad non-tariff barriers. • In return for some relatively modest allowances associated with American grain and beef exports, KORUS will a-reciprocally increase our trade deficit in seven high-paying manufacturing sectors, according to our own International Trade Commission. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that KORUS will cause the loss of at least 159,000 jobs. • In 2009 (the latest year for which I have data, although 2010 is reported to be similar), the United States imported products valued at $39.2 billion from Korea while it exported $28.6 billion, an already obvious trade deficit for us of $10.6 billion. As a major part of this deficit, U.S. carmakers sold vehicles worth $161 million to Korea in 2009, while Korea's manufacturers, led by Hyundai Motor and its sister company, Kia Motors, earned a staggering $5.7 billion from their exports to America. In the first nine months of 2010, U.S. automobile manufacturers exported 10,162 vehicles to Korea, while Korean manufacturers exported an almost unbelievable 449,403 cars to us. Yet under the proposed FTA, the most that U.S. auto manufacturers could realistically ever hope to export to Korea is around 50,000 vehicles a year given the myriad barriers which Korea has set up to protect its domestic auto manufacturers. • The new European Union free-trade accord with Seoul that goes into effect this month has none of the fundamental flaws that make our proposed FTA bark like a dog. • KORUS allows for Korean dumped or subsidized components to be shipped to the U.S. from third countries, it does not address Korea's ongoing currency manipulation, and it fails to include a comprehensive annual review mechanism to ensure that its provisions are fully and faithfully enforced.

SKFTA is bad- it kills jobs, encourages unethical business practices, and doubles the trade deficit.

Stotts 11 (Larry Stotts, July 26, 2011, The Hutchinson News, “Bad Trade”, http://www.hutchnews.com/Westernfront/wf-Stotts-Larry-6-27)

President Obama previously announced he will push three bad-news trade deals signed years ago by former President George Bush. That includes the job-killing trade pact with Korea, the shameful deal with unionist-murder capital Colombia and the dirty deal with the notorious tax-haven Panama. Current unfair trade acts and corporate control over the debate about the future of America is imploding the U.S. work force, as jobs are steadily relocated offshore. What we have today is not free trade at all, it's ruthlessly manipulated trade. Trade is not supposed to mean companies close their factories here because they don't want to pay reasonable wages, protect worker safety or the environment, or pay taxes to support their communities. Corporations sending jobs across borders to a "business-friendly" country contributes to pollution at will and takes advantage of exploited labor. These agreements hurt American workers and communities by lowering wages and killing jobs when we can least afford it. Just like with NAFTA, proponents of the Korea FTA claim it will increase exports and create jobs. But even the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), a federal agency that has often over-estimated the benefits of potential trade agreements, predicts that this pact will increase the U.S. global trade deficit, meaning that the U.S. will lose more jobs than it creates as a result of this deal. The USITC study suggests that the jobs likely to be lost under this agreement are in decent-paying fields like manufacturing and high-tech. Jobs that currently help support families and keep money circulating throughout our economy. The Economic Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., estimates that the Korea FTA will double the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea to nearly $27 billion and cost the U.S. a net 159,000 jobs in fewer than seven years of the deal taking effect. America's growing ($497 billion last year) trade deficit is decimating our industries. You can't gut industry after industry and expect not to reduce our GDP. If we didn't have this huge trade deficit, we wouldn't be fighting many of the current budget battles. Why? Because we'd have a larger GDP, so tax revenues would be higher. Spending on public benefits would be lower, and painlessly so, because fewer people would be poor and middle-class people would have more money to spend and grow the economy. Thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, skewed corporate policies are undercutting the people's voice. U.S. job opportunities continue to decline due to favorable tax laws creating the incentives for corporate off-shoring. This is a bad deal for working Americans and those unemployed looking for work. Our country's Congressional delegation should oppose unfair trade acts that don't benefit their constituents. Congress gets the final say, and votes could come by the end of this month! Take action; let your state representative know your opinion and how you want to be served.

Impact Turn- Economy/Pollution

SKFTA is bad- it undermines our economy and encourages pollution.

Dodson and Ridihalgh 11 (Lynne Dodson and Kathleen Ridihalgh, July 26, 2011, The Seattle Times, “Congress should reject proposed trade agreements and insist on better policies”, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2015736117_guest27dodson.html)

THE definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. This summer, insanity reigns over proposed U.S. trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. For more than 20 years, "free" trade agreements have systematically undermined the American economy and the middle class. The growing disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" is turning the American dream into a nightmare. It is a direct result of our failed trade policy, and it needs to stop now. We need trade. We need trade that promotes enforceable labor rights, protection of natural resources, food security, self-determination and healthy, safe communities. Trade needs to work for people and our economy, not just for multinational corporations and investors. Historically, multinational corporations have written trade rules to suit their shareholders, increasing profit on the backs of workers and the environment. The investment chapters of the proposed free-trade agreements give foreign investors and corporations expansive rights to directly challenge public-interest laws and regulations for compensation before international tribunals, bypassing domestic courts. We have seen Mexico and Canada lose NAFTA challenges to environmental protection and the U.S. has spent millions defending itself against suits. The South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement alone would increase our trade deficit by $16.7 billion and displace 159,000 U.S. jobs in the first 7 years, according to the Economic Policy Institute. In Washington state, the Washington Fair Trade Coalition estimates more than 59,000 jobs would be lost. The agreement also bans "Buy Local" preferences designed to boost the economy while allowing products made in sweatshops in North Korea and China to be labeled "Made in Korea" and sold in the U.S. at reduced or no tariffs. So while the U.S. has sanctions on trade with North Korea, the South Korea-U.S. agreement would cause U.S. consumers to unwittingly contribute to the coffers of a regime that continues to abuse its people and the environment, while investing in nuclear capability. The director of National Intelligence has called for an investigation into the security implications of the decline of American manufacturing, caused by off-shoring through U.S. trade deals. If ratified by Congress, the South Korea agreement would also trump most new measures designed to combat climate pollution. The Bush administration pressured South Korea to weaken its auto-emission standards as a prerequisite to any deal, and the agreement would lock in these weaker standards. This weakens U.S. standards by discouraging investment in cleaner technology and increasing support for lobbying efforts to drive down the standards where they want to do business. Ratifying a trade agreement with Colombia that does not include meaningful and enforceable labor standards is particularly reprehensible. Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists. In 2010, 51 labor leaders were killed in Colombia, more than in the rest of the world combined. So far in 2011, another 17 have been killed and 98 percent of these murders are unsolved. If 51 CEOs were murdered in Colombia last year, would we be pursuing this without any safeguards to protect lives? Trade agreements must promote domestic job growth, protect workers' rights and ensure that provisions do not put domestic policy at risk. We need to invest in education, work-force training, infrastructure, research and development, and commit to trade-law enforcement. These are the first trade agreements to come up for a vote since the global economic meltdown demonstrated that multinational corporations need oversight. It is time for the Washington congressional delegation to demand trade policies that reflect our values, build our economy, strengthen national sovereignty, and advance workers, the environment and civil society. It's not only fair. It's smart.

SKFTA is bad- it kills jobs and has weak environmental standards.

Carlsen 11 (Laura Carlsen, July 22, 2011, “THE ADACITY OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS”, http://www.nl-aid.org/continent/latin-america/the-adacity-of-free-trade-agreements/)

Congress could vote any day now to strike a new blow against already-battered U.S. workers and the unemployed. Committees in the House and Senate recently marked up the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The Obama administration is urging passage of all three relics of the Bush administration before the summer recess. The full-court press on the FTAs represents a reversal for a president elected on a trade reform platform. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama proclaimed his opposition to the NAFTA-style FTAs and boasted of his stance against the devastating North American and Central American agreements. As candidate Obama, he carefully distanced himself from the open-market, pro-corporate policies of his predecessor, calling for significant changes to the NAFTA model, including enforceable labor and environmental standards, and consumer protections. The Global Crisis In the three years since Obama wooed voters with talk of bold changes in trade policy, the need for reforms has reached crisis proportions. The global economic crisis left the United States with skyrocketing un- and under-employment rates. The government paid billions of dollars in bailout money to the corporations who caused the crisis. These corporations then turned around to post record profits and hand out astronomical executive pay bonuses. The evidence that FTA-fueled outsourcing benefits those corporations while putting Americans out of work has piled up, and polls show that a majority of U.S. citizens oppose NAFTA-style FTAs. Abroad, labor violations and increasing inequality have exacerbated the plight of poor and working people in FTA countries, while creating a new class of mega-rich that often control national economies. This would seem to be precisely the moment to make good on the promises to fix trade and investment policy, and to give workers everywhere a fair shake in a globalized economy that has been severely skewed toward the interests of powerful corporations — to devastating effect. Instead, the Obama administration has gone from the audacity of hope to the audacity of presenting three pro-corporate trade agreements to a public suffering from a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate. As United Steel Workers President Leo Gerard concludes in a letter to Congress opposing the trade agreements, “Trade deals force working Americans to assume all the risk and encourage big multinationals to reap all the rewards.” NAFTA Look-alikes The new agreements look nearly identical to the NAFTA model, despite some tweaks and promises of advances that are mostly left outside the actual text of the agreements. Some of the most noxious elements that persist in the FTAs before Congress are: prohibitions on financial sector regulation and capital controls, foreign investment incentives that encourage off-shoring, separate legal regimes in which corporations can sue governments in specialized tribunals, weak environmental standards, vague and toothless labor standards, and intellectual property rules that monopolize knowledge needed for the public good. The Economic Policy Institute calculates that the South Korean FTA alone will cost 159,000 U.S. jobs. Department of Commerce data shows that over the past decade of free trade policy multinational corporations cut their U.S. workforce by 2.9 million and increased overseas employment by 2.4 million. Under these trade and investment regimes, U.S. workers clearly suffer, which is why voters have supported candidates critical of NAFTA-style free trade. Although job displacement is frequently viewed as a zero-sum system where workers of different nations compete, the reality is that decent jobs — with dignified working conditions and real labor rights — are lost everywhere. FTAs turn the world into a global labor bazaar for corporations to bargain-hunt. Labor unions in the countries purportedly hungering for a U.S. FTA overwhelmingly oppose them. Colombian labor organizations have consistently taken a stand against the Colombia FTA, asserting that it creates binding terms between two vastly unequal economies; would negatively affect agriculture, manufacturing, medicines and other vital sectors; would generate few if any net jobs; and would place thousands of local businesses in jeopardy. A group of Korean unions, farmers, and civil society groups traveled to Washington last January to “prevent the negative consequences that the Korea-US FTA will have on both of our countries.” Both groups have presented their testimony to the U.S. Congress, exploding another myth: that FTAs are a “reward” to be bestowed on deserving allies. Powerful economic interests in these nations – typically over-represented by their governments — have brought tremendous pressure to bear in favor of the agreements. Meanwhile, the poor, workers, small farmers, the displaced, and indigenous and ethnic organizations nearly unanimously oppose them. Colombians Against the FTA A letter to the U.S. Congress signed by 431 U.S. and Colombian organizations urges members to reject the U.S.-Colombia FTA, citing “serious labor, human rights, Afro-Colombian, indigenous, and environmental concerns in Colombia.” The letter points out that Colombia continues to be “the most dangerous country in the world for trade union activists” and cites a 94 percent impunity rate for assassins of labor leaders. Fifty-one trade unionists were killed in 2010, and killings continue unabated in 2011. An Action Plan developed between the U.S. and Colombian governments to assuage concerns does not form part of the binding text of the agreement. At this stage, the plan amounts to good intentions without establishing a firm basis for collective bargaining for cooperative members, or clear benchmarks for reducing violence, abuses, and impunity. Promoters have countered criticisms of the Colombian government’s labor practices by asserting that increased U.S. investment can serve as a positive force in upholding workers’ rights. This argument has not been borne out in practice. In Guatemala, unionist murders increased following passage of CAFTA. The logic is simple. With more powerful economic interests in the country competing in a globalized economy, companies too often view workers’ rights as economic liabilities. The debate on the Colombian FTA has also ignored the need to assess the effects of increased foreign investment on the continued armed conflict in Colombia. NAFTA proved that FTAs have much more to do with revamping investment regimes for multinational corporations than with the exchange of goods and services. These investments also direct money into paramilitaries involved in drug export, money-laundering, and other crimes. There is ample evidence of these shady relations in the past, most notably the recent case of Chiquita’s payoffs to paramilitary organizations as part of “doing business” in Colombia. Such investments, associated with huge agricultural projects and mining ventures, often go hand in hand with violence and displacement. A report on Inter-American Development Bank megaprojects by the Americas Program and the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities showed the correlation between the expansion of palm oil mono-crops and forced displacement. At a recent prayer breakfast, Lisa Haugaard of the Latin American Working Group spoke of her experience gathering evidence of landowners expanding cattle ranching or mining operations at the point of a gun. The many attacks on Afro-Colombian populations as part of this process led 24 members of Congress to write President Obama on July 6 stating, “We are concerned that the FTA would stimulate business development in Colombia at the expense of these vulnerable populations.” The congressional members also note that an estimated 5.2 million people in the country are already displaced – more than one out of nine Colombians. . Jobs First The Colombia FTA provides the clearest case of why free trade in the context of inequity and violence not only does not help but exacerbates the problems. The question of whether Colombia “deserves” the FTA can be easily answered. No population deserves an international agreement that directly or indirectly promotes displacement, violence, targeted murder, and the continued violation of the rights of indigenous and Afro-American populations. Labor, human rights, and faith-based organizations are pushing back hard against the FTA onslaught, and offer tools for citizens to make their voices heard over the din of corporate lobbies. For Congress to turn a deaf ear to those at greatest risk and in greatest need — both in the United States, and in the countries affected by the toxic trio of FTAs now making the rounds — would contradict U.S. values and U.S. public opinion. Especially now, as the U.S. economy still struggles to regain its footing, the best way to rebuild stability is to learn from mistakes of the past and strive for more fairness. A necessary step is to reject the Colombia, South Korea, and Panama Free Trade Agreements.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.85 Mb.

Share with your friends: