Terror Defense No Al Qaida Terror
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- No collapse – the economy is fire – experts
- No econ decline – we’re on the up mend
- Economic decline doesn’t cause war
- No risk of manufacturing decline – productivity and expansion are up – jobs don’t matter
- Manufacturing no longer key to the economy and other sectors fill in
- Manufacturing sector growing faster than it ever has
- Manufacturing not key to the economy
- Steel won’t collapse – it’s on the upmend
- Their evidence mistakes protectionism with isolationism
US EconNo CollapseMost recent data proves no collapse – 2015 will be killerRugaber 1-3 [Christopher S. Rugaber is an AP economics writer based in Washington. “Why the US will power the world economy in 2015”, 1-3-15, http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/money/economy/2015/01/03/us-will-power-world-economy/21246283/, msm] The United States is back, and ready to drive global growth in 2015.¶ After long struggling to claw its way out of the Great Recession, the world's biggest economy is on an extended win streak that is edging it closer to full health. But the new year doesn't look quite so bright in other major countries.¶ China is slowing as it transitions from investment to consumption. Japan has slid into a recession. Russia appears headed for one. Europe is barely growing.¶ And the U.S.?¶ Six years after its financial system nearly sank and nearly that long since the recession ended, the United States is expected to grow in 2015 at its fastest pace in a decade. Its expansion from July through September — a 5 percent annual rate — was the swiftest for any quarter since 2003.¶ That pace will likely ease a bit. Still, the economy is expected to expand 3.1 percent next year, according to a survey by the National Association for Business Economics. It would be the first year of 3 percent growth since 2005.¶ The acceleration of U.S. growth is a key reason the global economy is also expected to grow faster, at about 3 percent, up from 2.5 percent in 2014, according to economists at JPMorgan Chase and IHS Global Insight.¶ Cheering cheaper oil¶ Plunging oil prices are a big reason for the optimism. Prices have been cut roughly in half since summer. In some areas of the country, gasoline prices have slipped below $2 a gallon. The drop, along with more fuel-efficient cars, will save the average U.S. household $550 on gas next year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That means consumers have more to spend on items like cars, furniture and appliances.¶ What's more, Americans' finances are in firmer shape. Job growth is accelerating. Businesses are investing in buildings and software, and home building is expected to pick up.¶ Lower oil prices will also help Europe and Japan, and the global economy should expand faster than it did this year, economists say. But the divergence between the United States and most of the rest of the world is striking and carries some risks. Big exporters, from China to Germany to Japan, will depend heavily on a recovering U.S. to boost their economies. No collapse – the economy is fire – expertsSTARKMAN 1-2 [Dean Starkman covers Wall Street for the Los Angeles Times. An award-winning journalist and media critic, he is the author of 2014's “The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark: The Financial Crisis and the Disappearance of Investigative Journalism,” an analysis of business-press failures prior to the 2008 financial crisis. “Overseas problems won't derail growing U.S. economy, analysts say”, 1-2-15, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-global-economy-outlook-20150103-story.html, msm] Although the third-quarter Commerce Department report was a pleasant surprise, most forecasts call for gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced in the country — to be lower but still healthy near or above 3%. That's a rate not achieved for a full year since the Great Recession.¶ The economy remains a long way from full employment, Zandi said, but job growth now averaging around 225,000 a month should be enough for the next 18 months to absorb the number of under-employed and unemployed, which together account for about 1.25% of the labor market.¶ Even before mid-2016, wage growth, long a missing ingredient from the U.S. recovery, should take hold and reach 3.5% before inflation over the next two years, around 2% after inflation.¶ Improved moods among consumers could mean more purchases of cars and other big-ticket items that already are back to pre-recession levels.¶ GM Arlington, Texas, plant still running hard¶ GM workers along the production line at the General Motors Assembly Plant in Arlington, Texas. (Louis DeLuca / Dallas Morning News)¶ Morgan Stanley expects the still-struggling housing sector to bounce back with 10.2% growth in residential investment. The 1.8% growth for the just-completed year was hampered by a difficult winter, an uptick in mortgage rates and tight lending standards that only now are starting to ease.¶ Moody's also noted that nearly 3 million millennials — those 18 to 34 years old — moved in with their parents since the start of the recession seven years ago, and they represent pent-up demand for housing.¶ Analysts expect that only the energy sector, hurt by a plunge in oil prices, will lag behind. No econ decline – we’re on the up mendBOAK 12-26 [Josh Boak is an economics reporter for POLITICO, “In 2014, US economy showed increasing resilience”, 12-26-14, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/2014-us-economy-showed-increasing-resilience, msm] The U.S. economy flexed its old muscles in 2014.¶ More than five years removed from the Great Recession, worries had taken hold that perhaps the world's largest economy had slid into a semi-permanent funk.¶ Consumers, businesses and investors, after enduring a brutal winter, showed renewed vigor as the year wore on and set the United States apart from much of the world.¶ Stocks repeatedly set record highs. Employers were on pace to add nearly 3 million jobs, the most in 15 years. Sinking oil prices cut gasoline costs to their lowest levels since May 2009. Auto sales accelerated. Inflation was a historically low sub-2 percent.¶ The U.S. economy proved it could thrive even as the Federal Reserve ended its bond buying program, which had been intended to aid growth by holding down long-term loan rates.¶ All told, the United States remained insulated from the financial struggles surfacing everywhere from Europe and Latin America to China, Japan and Russia.¶ So what explained the U.S. economy's resilience this year?¶ Economists say it largely reflected the delayed benefits of finally mending the damage from the worst downturn in nearly 80 years. Unlike past recoveries that enjoyed comparatively swift rebounds, this one proved agonizingly slow. It took 6½ years to regain all the jobs lost the recession — 8.7 million — far longer than during previous recoveries.¶ "It was a healing process from a severe recession and the financial crisis," said Richard Moody, chief economist at Regions Financial, a bank based in Alabama.¶ The healing isn't complete. Wage growth remains lackluster and has barely outpaced extremely low inflation. Home building has been tepid.¶ But worries earlier this year that the economy might be trapped indefinitely by sluggish growth have largely faded. Here are the economic highlights of 2014:¶ — HIRING BOOM¶ Employers added 2.65 million jobs over the first 11 months of the year, and the unemployment rate sank to 5.8 percent from 6.7 percent. When the government announces the December job data next month, the 2014 job total is expected to be just shy of 3 million — the most since the dot-com era in 1999. Compared with recent years, those gains have been less concentrated in lower-paying industries such as retail, food service and temp agencies.¶ "We're finally entering that virtuous cycle phase of the expansion" when more jobs lead to higher incomes, which generates more consumer spending and growth, said Brett Ryan, an economist at Deutsche Bank.¶ Though average wage growth has been modest, the number of people with paychecks — and the ability to spend — has soared. If you exclude the economy's winter-induced 2.1 percent annual contraction in the first quarter of the year, annualized growth has averaged 4.4 percent in four of the past five quarters. That's far above the historic average of roughly 3.2 percent in the decades after World War II.¶ — STOCKS SURGE¶ Stocks extended their bullish stampede of nearly six years. The Standard & Poor's 500 index climbed about 13 percent this year, hitting record highs more than 50 times. If you bought the index at a market bottom in March 2009, you've basically tripled your money. Corporate mergers helped drive this year's gains, along with major companies buying up $400 billion-plus of their own stock.¶ —OIL PRICES PLUNGE¶ In a gift for U.S. consumers, energy got significantly cheaper. Crude oil prices were essentially cut in half from this year's high. The slowing economies in Europe and Asia curbed demand, while production remained steady. The price decline trickled down to gasoline pumps. Average prices nationwide dropped to $2.32 a gallon, down roughly a dollar from a year ago, according to AAA. Some of that price slowdown has hurt U.S. oil producers, which must weigh layoffs. But overall, cheaper oil is a positive. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen noted that the falling prices resemble a tax cut, generating savings for consumers that can be spent elsewhere to drive economic growth.¶ — AUTOS SALES UP¶ Far more Americans splurged on a new car after having held onto aging vehicles during the recession and slow early stages of the recovery. Sales were on track to increase 6 percent this year, with 16.5 million new vehicles on the road, according to Cars.com. That would be the best sales pace since 2006.¶ —INTEREST RATES DROP¶ Even as the economy has strengthened — usually a sign that interest rates will rise — it's become easier to borrow. More loans mean more spending and faster growth. Rates have declined even though the Fed ended its program to stimulate growth by buying billions in Treasury and mortgage bonds each month.¶ The yield on the 10-year Treasury note has slipped to about 2.27 percent from 3 percent when the year began. The average 30-year fixed mortgage is 3.83 percent, down from roughly 4.5 percent a year ago. No WarEconomic decline doesn’t cause warRobert Jervis, Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, 2011 (Force in Our Times, Saltzman Working Paper No. 15, July 2011, http://www.siwps.com/news.attachment/saltzmanworkingpaper15-842/SaltzmanWorkingPaper15.PDF) Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy, and bring back old-fashioned beggar-thy-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a pre-existing high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable. ManufacturingNo risk of manufacturing decline – productivity and expansion are up – jobs don’t matterMoran and Oldenski 14 [Theodore H. Moran, Marcus Wallenberg Chair at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University and Lindsay Oldenski, Assistant Professor at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University; Non-resident senior fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics. “US manufacturing: in strong condition”, 8-12-14, https://agenda.weforum.org/2014/08/us-manufacturing-base-productivity-employment/, msm] Our research shows that the overall size of the US industrial base – real value-added in manufacturing – has been growing rapidly for more than four decades, and is on track to surpass the all-time 2006-7 high before the end of 2014.¶ In contrast to other researchers, we show that US manufacturing growth is broad-based and includes subsectors such as transportation equipment, medical equipment, machinery, semiconductors, communications equipment and motor vehicles, as well as computers and electronics.¶ Moreover, contrary to widespread hand-wringing about weakening competitive performance on the part of US firms and workers, productivity in the manufacturing sector has been growing, both absolutely and relative to other sectors of the US economy.¶ At the same time, the most recent data show that the productivity growth in US manufacturing is also strong in comparison to other countries.¶ Finally, our research shows clearly that increased offshoring of manufacturing operations by US multinationals is associated with increases in the size and strength of their manufacturing activities in the US.¶ Indeed, the preponderance of net job loss in the US manufacturing sector comes within companies that stay at home and do not invest abroad. Of particular note is the large feedback to US R&D and other high-skilled services from outward investment on the part of US manufacturing multinationals.¶ Looking beyond employment data in US manufacturing¶ President Obama is the latest in a succession of political leaders who resolve that the US must find ways to strengthen the manufacturing sector and make it more competitive. Between 2000 and 2011, manufacturing jobs declined from 17.3 million to 11.6 million – a decline of 5.7 million or some 33%. There has been a slight increase in total manufacturing employment since 2010, with 12.0 million manufacturing jobs reported for 2013. This is still about a 30% decline, however, relative to 2000.¶ But this decline in manufacturing jobs is not because the size of the US manufacturing base is shrinking. Real value-added in manufacturing grew by 3.1% per year over the entire period 1960-2007, and after a dip during the recession recovered with 4% per year growth from 2010 through 2013. Even with a growth rate no higher than 2.8% per year, the absolute size of the US industrial base – total value-added in manufacturing – will surpass the all-time 2006-2007 high before the end of 2014.¶ Some authors – notably Martin Baily and Barry Bosworth (2014) – argue that this US manufacturing output growth has been driven primarily by one subsector – computers and electronics. But when we investigate the heterogeneity within the US manufacturing sector, we find that a number of other subsectors, including transportation equipment, medical equipment, machinery, semiconductors, communications equipment, and motor vehicles all grew at rates well above the manufacturing sector average.¶ Not only is the US manufacturing base becoming bigger than ever but the productivity of firms and workers in manufacturing leads the rest of the US economy in growing stronger. Total factor productivity and labour productivity in the manufacturing sector have been growing faster in the manufacturing sector than in the economy as a whole. At the same time, the most recent data show that the productivity growth in US manufacturing is strong not just relative to other sectors within the US, but also in comparison to other countries. In 2010 and 2011 (the most recent years for which data are available), the share of manufacturing value-added in total US GDP grew by 2.19%, while the total global share of manufacturing value-added in world income fell by 0.99%. Thus, the US is in a very strong position to compete globally in the manufacturing sector, even with sluggish employment numbers.¶ But major policy questions – particularly important in contemporary Washington – remain. What is the role of outward investment by US manufacturing companies in the evolution of the US industrial base? Might US firms and workers in the manufacturing sector be even larger and more competitive in the domestic economy if US manufacturing firms did less investing abroad?¶ The impact of offshoring by US multinationals on US domestic output, investment, and employment¶ To investigate the impact of outward investment by manufacturing multinationals on their operations at home, we use comprehensive firm-level data collected by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to empirically identify what happens when an individual firm expands its operations abroad. We employ panel regression methods with data on all US MNCs over a 20-year time period. We include firm-fixed effects that hold constant everything that is unique about a given firm, isolating how its employment in the US and the other variables we examine change when it increases its outward FDI. Thus, all the characteristics that define a given firm – such as the industry it operates in, its size, its relative market power, etc. – are controlled for and do not confound the results. We also include year-fixed effects, which hold constant everything external to the firm that was going on in a given year, thus removing any potential impact of recessions and booms.¶ We track the changes in employment, sales, capital investment, and R&D in the US that are associated with offshoring and other types of foreign expansion by US firms. In a novel exercise, we compare the outcomes for manufacturing multinationals strictly defined and service multinationals with manufacturing operations. This latter investigation improves upon existing studies of pure manufacturing firms. We include firms for which the majority of US operations are classified as services, including high value activities such as R&D, engineering, IT services, marketing and management, but which also offshore manufacturing production. By analysing these kinds of firms, we are able to assess how offshoring of manufacturing impacts domestic services within the same firm.¶ Figure 1 shows the results broken down by the primary industry of operations in the US and in the foreign affiliates of the US firms. The top panel of Figure 1 shows the results only for strictly defined manufacturing firms, that is, firms that primarily focus on manufacturing both in their US headquarters and at their foreign affiliates. The bottom panel looks at firms that primarily focus on services at their US headquarters, but that also perform manufacturing activities abroad, and shows what happens to these firms when they expand manufacturing sales or employment at their foreign affiliates.¶ The first thing to note about these results is that they are all positive. Thus, by any measure, expansion abroad by a US-based MNC is associated with domestic US expansion by the same firm. The foreign operations of these firms are complements to – not substitutes for – domestic US operations.¶ While all types of offshoring are associated with increased activity in the US, some particularly important patterns emerge.¶ First, the overseas expansion of US manufacturing firms is accompanied by a positive and significant increase in employment at home.¶ Of course, this positive relationship does not emerge in each and every case. Some plants may close, other plants may open, and the composition of jobs within plants may change. But our results show that the creation of jobs by US multinationals abroad and the expansion of sales by US multinationals abroad are both associated with overall more jobs at home. Indeed, the preponderance of net job loss in the US manufacturing sector comes within companies that stay at home and do not invest abroad.¶ Figure 1. Relationship between foreign manufacturing expansion and domestic manufacturing and service activities of US MNCs¶ oldenski fig1 8 aug¶ Notes: Based on regressions using BEA firm-level data from 1990-2009. All results are statistically significant at the 1% level. All specifications include firm- and year-fixed effects.¶ Second, it is notable that the largest benefits from offshoring manufacturing tasks accrue to US R&D.¶ For example, a 10% increase in manufacturing employment at foreign affiliates of US firms is associated with a 6.2% increase in the amount of US R&D spending at the firms doing the offshoring. When the US site is primarily focused on R&D and other services, increasing manufacturing offshoring by 10% leads to a 10.8% increase in the amount of US R&D spending at that firm. When manufacturing offshoring is measured using sales by foreign affiliates, rather than employment, the increases in domestic R&D spending associated with a 10% increase abroad are 13.2% for service-focused US facilities. In other words, international expansion by US firms does not reduce their domestic activities. Instead, it is accompanied by increases in investment at home, and these increases are the largest for R&D spending.¶ Finally, our results reveal that when manufacturing tasks are offshored, much of the gain for the US shows up back within the US domestic service sector.¶ Oldenski (2012) has shown that US MNCs offshore their relatively more routine tasks but keep the most complex and non-routine tasks in the US. This specialization is not surprising based on the strong US comparative advantage in more highly-skilled and non-routine tasks such as innovation, engineering, and management rather than routine tasks such as basic assembly. Further work by Oldenski (2014) demonstrates that this specialization, according to comparative advantage, results in the creation of more highly-skilled, high-wage jobs in the US.¶ There is no dispute that the data show that aggregate employment in the US manufacturing sector has declined since 2000. But such observed decline in domestic employment cannot be traced to the overseas expansion of US firms because of our clear confirmation that offshoring is accompanied by domestic expansion on the part of the firms that are doing the offshoring. Other factors, such as recessions, new technologies or changes in demand must be the culprits in domestic job destruction. Quite to the contrary, if US MNCs had not undertaken the external investments and external job creation that they did during this period, the results in Figure 1 indicate that US domestic employment at US MNCs would be lower, not higher.¶ Conclusions¶ A careful look at the most recent and detailed data shows that despite falling employment, the US manufacturing base is growing larger, more productive, and more competitive. The results of our empirical analysis show that the expansion of operations abroad by US manufacturing multinationals leads to particularly strong increases in economic activity – including creation of greater numbers of high-paying manufacturing jobs – by those same firms in the US domestic economy. The policy implications are clear – any measures that the US might take to hinder or dis-incentivize outward expansion by US firms would lead to less robust economic activity – and fewer good US jobs at home, not more. Manufacturing no longer key to the economy and other sectors fill inWilson 14 [Reid Wilson is a correspondent for the Washington Post. “Watch the U.S. transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, in one gif”, 9-3-14, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/03/watch-the-u-s-transition-from-a-manufacturing-economy-to-a-service-economy-in-one-gif/, msm] In 1990, the manufacturing industry employed more workers than any other sector in 36 states. Today, the picture is totally different: Manufacturing is the dominant industry in only seven states.¶ What happened? A few recessions, the rise of off-shoring and imports from China and the rest of the world and the explosion of the health-care industry, to begin with. Over the last two decades, employment in the manufacturing sector has plummeted, from nearly 18 million jobs in 1990 to just over 12 million jobs today. (Update: A smart reader points out that the decline in manufacturing jobs is actually more closely tied to automation rather than offshoring. The U.S. is manufacturing more now than it ever has, but much of that work can be done by machines — which don’t require salaries or health care coverage.)¶ In place of those missing manufacturing jobs, the health-care and social assistance industries have nearly doubled in size, from 9.1 million in 1990 to just over 18 million today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Today, the health care and social assistance industries are the largest employers in 34 states.¶ The transition from a manufacturing-dominated economy to a health care-driven economy wasn’t direct. As manufacturing jobs declined in the middle of the 1990s, retail trade jobs took over. By 2003, retail employers were the largest source of jobs in 21 states. Retail jobs were hit hard by the recession; between 2008 and 2009, 13 states went from retail-dominant to health care-dominant. Manufacturing sector growing faster than it ever hasEconomic Times 1-10 [“US manufacturing sector growing faster than other economy: Barack Obama”, 1-10-15, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-01-10/news/57913148_1_manufacturing-sector-president-barack-obama-jobs, msm] President Barack Obama has said the US manufacturing sector is growing faster than any other economy and is now in a good position to create jobs.¶ "For decades, manufacturing was the essential ingredient in building our middle class. It was a bargain that involved more than just building things, it reflected the values that this country stood for," Obama said yesterday in a speech in Clinton City in Tennessee.¶ "Over time, technology made some jobs obsolete. Globalisation and additional foreign competition meant that some jobs went overseas", Obama added.¶ American manufacturing lost about one-third of its jobs in the last decade, and the middle class paid the price," the president noted referring to the impact of globalisation, competition and economic recession on the manufacturing sector.¶ "So when I took office, I believed, that if the last decade was characterised by outsourcing, I wanted to define this decade for insourcing making sure that the United States was competitive and that businesses wanted to locate here and that we had a dynamic manufacturing sector and research and development sector to support that manufacturing so that we could reverse some of those trends," Obama said.¶ "So we invested in clean energy, saved the auto industry, and today, factories are opening their doors at the fastest pace in almost two decades," he said.¶ "Manufacturing is actually in its best stretch of job creation since the 1990s. It added about 7,86,000 jobs over the past 58 months. Manufacturing is actually growing faster than the rest of the economy," Obama said.¶ "Right here in Tennessee, manufacturing jobs have jumped by about 11 per cent," Obama said as he announced launching of a network of manufacturing hubs across the country.¶ "We are launching these hubs around the country, and the concept is simple. We bring businesses, research universities, community colleges, state, local and federal governments together, and we figure out, where are some key opportunities for manufacturing in the future, how do we get out in front of the curve, how do we make sure everybody is working together," he said. Manufacturing not key to the economyWessel 12 (David Wessel, economics editor of The Wall Street, “Manufacturing Industry Gained Momentum In 2011,” 1-19-12, http://www.npr.org/2012/01/19/145437593/are-more-u-s-manufacturing-jobs-being-created) WESSEL: Well, that's a good question. So basically, factories have added more than 300,000 jobs in the past two years, and that's pretty good news - certainly better than losing jobs. But it would take two million more jobs to get manufacturing back to where it was in 2007 before the recession. Factories are managing to produce more without hiring a lot more workers, because they're getting more productive; technology, reorganization, making people work harder, making them work smarter. It's all made for a remarkable surge of productivity. Factories get 40 percent more output out of every out of work today, compared to what they got 10 years ago. MONTAGNE: Still though, if sales keep growing, would factories not hire more? Maybe not as many workers as they had before, but more, and couldn't that be one part of the answer, at least, to the jobs problem? WESSEL: Well, it would definitely be one part, but it's a small part. For all the romance about manufacturing, we are no longer a manufacturing economy when it comes to jobs. Only nine percent of the jobs in America today are in manufacturing. It just isn't big enough to put Americans back to work. Even if factory employment doubled, which isn't going to happen, that wouldn't be enough new jobs to put all the 13 million unemployed people back to work. So yes, it's a plus. But no, it's not enough to solve our unemployment problem. SteelSteel won’t collapse – it’s on the upmendHall 14 [John Hall is a freelance writer who reports on commodities markets. “Steel Price Forecast for 2015: It Might Get 'Ugly'”, http://news.thomasnet.com/imt/2014/11/13/steel-price-forecast-for-2015-it-might-get-ugly, msm] Surging Capacity Keeps Prices Down, At Least Stable¶ Progress in the steel industry in recent years has undergone a healthy recovery no doubt, though any benchmarks analysts use to describe that recovery invariably are compared to the progress it could have experienced had the 2008 Wall Street collapse and subsequent Great Recession never happened.¶ “[An] approximately $500 billion annual spend rate pre-recession fell to about $330 billion, and now it’s up to about $410 billion,” John Anton, manager of IHS Steel Service, told My Purchasing Center. “It’s come up a lot, but it still has a long way to go. Our forecast has it getting back to pre-recession level by the end of 2016. It’s a ‘half-empty, half-full’ scenario. The half-full part is things are rising rather quickly. The half-empty part is you’re still not sending nearly as much steel to construction as you did pre-recession. Certainly more than you did two years ago, but not what you sent in 2007 and early 2008.” ProtectionismTheir evidence mistakes protectionism with isolationismStokes 14 [Bruce Stokes is director of global economic attitudes in the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, where he assesses public and expert views about economic conditions, values and policies. “U.S. isolationism isn't protectionism”, 1-14-14, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/14/u-s-isolationism-isnt-protectionism/, msm] Isolationism is not protectionism. And confusing the two can create a false impression of the trajectory of U.S. global engagement in the year ahead.¶ New polling data showing that the American public is turning inward, preoccupied with domestic affairs and less interested in international engagement, is not evidence of a rise in U.S. economic protectionism, with its grave consequences for global business. Indeed, even as their doubts grow over the future U.S. geopolitical role, Americans say that the benefits from U.S. participation in the global economy outweigh the risks. And even as they harbor doubts about the impact of trade agreements on wages and jobs, public support for closer trade and business ties with other nations stands at its highest point in more than a decade.¶ The Obama administration’s disengagement from Iraq and Afghanistan, its “leading from behind” in Libya and its reluctance to become involved in the Syrian civil war all reflect a broad public reassessment of America’s future security role in the world. But the White House’s pursuit of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, two unprecedented trade deals, equally reflect Americans’ newfound acceptance of the importance – or at least inevitability – of U.S. economic integration with the rest of the world.¶ Still, 2014 could well prove to be a year when the United States is less globally engaged geopolitically, even while it is more engaged economically.¶ Americans say that the country does too much to solve world problems, and increasingly they want their leaders to pay more attention to problems at home. About half the public see the United States as overextended abroad, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. When asked to describe why they feel this way, nearly half cite problems at home, including the economy, which they say should get more attention instead.¶ More from GPS: Americans see declining U.S. prestige¶ And such skepticism about international engagement has increased. Currently, about half the public says the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” Such public international ennui has waxed and waned at various times in recent history, most notably after the Vietnam War. But this is the most lopsided split in favor of the U.S. “minding its own business” in the nearly 50 years this question has been asked.¶ Yet the American public expresses no such reluctance about U.S. involvement in the global economy. About three-in-four Americans say that growing trade and business ties between the United States and other countries are good for the nation. And such support for increased trade and business connections has increased 24 percentage points since 2008.¶ Moreover, at a time of deep partisan divides on many issues, Americans are united in endorsing global economic engagement. Solid majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents describe increased international trade and business ties as good for the U.S.¶ By more than two-to-one, Americans also see more benefits than risks from greater involvement in the global economy. This includes large majorities across education and income categories, as well as most Republicans, Democrats and independents.¶ To be sure, the public has worries about globalization. A 2010 Pew Research Center survey found that a majority of the public said free trade agreements lead to job losses. And a plurality said that free trade deals lower wages. Nevertheless, majorities wanted to increase trade with both Europe and Japan – the principal participants in the current transatlantic and transpacific trade negotiations.¶ And Americans are of two minds about foreign investment. Amid forecasts of massive new Chinese investment in the United States over the next decade, a majority says that more foreign companies setting up operations in the United States would mostly help the economy. But nearly three-quarters think that the economy would be hurt if more U.S. companies move their operations abroad.¶ So what does all this suggest? The prophecies of America’s retreat from the world are premature. Americans may want a less forward-leaning geopolitical posture in the world, but they still support greater U.S. global economic engagement with it. No trade warsZappone 12 [Chris Zappone is a journalist specializing in business, economy, the economics of the middle class, politics, society, technology, globalization, travel, and labor issues. “Murky protectionism' on the rise - but no trade war”, 1-10-12, http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/murky-protectionism-on-the-rise--but-no-trade-war-20120110-1pt3t.html, msm] At the outset of the global financial crisis, the world’s leaders pledged to resist calls to shield their local economies in order to prevent a trade war that could further damage global growth.¶ Four years on, with China slowing, Europe heading into recession and a political environment soured by successive financial crises, the question arises: how long will policymakers be able to resist those calls for more protectionism?¶ “Free trade is going to be under pressure,” said Lowy Institute international economy program director Mark Thirlwell. “Since 2007-08 the case for moving to greater trade liberalisation has got tougher and the demands for protection have increased.”¶ Only last week, China, which is grappling with a slowdown, raised the prospect of a trade war with the European Union in response to the EU's implementation of a carbon emissions tax on air travel to and from Europe. Earlier last month China imposed tariffs up to 21 per cent on US-made cars, affecting about $US4 billion imports a year.¶ Across the Pacific, US politicians in the throes of an election year with 8.5 per cent unemployment have issued more strident calls for China to “play by the rules” and allow the yuan to appreciate faster against the US dollar. The US has also asked the World Trade Organisation to probe China's support for its solar panel industry and the restrictions Beijing has placed on US poultry imports.¶ In fact, the most recent WTO data shows that the number of trade restrictive measures enacted by members rose 53 per cent to 339 occurrences over the year to October.¶ Yet the WTO admits that the motives behind the spate of actions aren’t always simply to protect local jobs. “Not all measures categorised as trade restrictive may have been adopted with such an intention,” the body said.¶ In Brazil, for example, the steep rise in the value of its currency, the real, has sparked a torrent of car imports into the country - similar to the online-overseas shopping boom in Australia. Brazil has in turn put a one-year provisional 30 per cent increase on auto imports, to counterbalance the effects of their strong currency.¶ In the US, China and Australia, infrastructure spending measures contain “buy local” requirements to stoke domestic growth, not necessary punish foreign businesses. The federal government in September streamlined its anti-dumping system that eases the way for companies to ask for investigations into imported goods that come in below market value to Australia. Again, well within the rules.¶ “What we’ve seen is a gradual ratcheting up of trade intervention,” said Mr Thirlwell, amounting to what he calls “murky protectionism” or government intervention through support for industries or complaints to global trade authorities.¶ To date, observers such as Mr Thirlwell say most countries have remained remarkably resistant to throwing up significant trade barriers.¶ For example, in November, the US, Australia and seven other Asian-Pacific nations including Japan, outlined the plan for an ambitious multilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership trade block worth 40 per cent of the world’s trade, in an effort to increase the flow of cross-border goods and investment. Japan, China and South Korea are also in the later stages of negotiation over a free trade deal between those three nations.¶ Australian National University international trade lecturer John Tang doesn’t believe the world is on the edge a new round of protectionism.¶ “I don’t see a general sea change towards protectionism for major trading blocks but that may be because so much of the industrialised world is relying on developing countries to sustain their exports,” he said.¶ Nevertheless, a shift in the political reality of the US, China or elsewhere could change that, he said.¶ Washington DC-based Brookings Institution fellow Joshua Meltzer said that if the euro zone broke up, elevating the crisis to a new stage, nations may switch to much more protective measures.¶ ‘‘I wouldn’t go so far to say the global economy is so integrated that we could never have anything that would approach a trade war,” said Washington DC-based Brookings Institution fellow Joshua Meltzer. “But I don’t think we’re on that track.” 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 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|