Election Disadvantage


China Bashing Bad – Economy



Download 1.8 Mb.
Page22/61
Date19.10.2016
Size1.8 Mb.
#3943
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   61

China Bashing Bad – Economy

Sanctions jack the U.S. economy and competitiveness


Lee 2005 (Don, Reporter – LA Times, “No Easy Answers on China Trade”, Los Angeles Times, 6-4, Lexis)

If protectionist measures such as Schumer's take hold, analysts said, the outcome could prove as damaging to the U.S. economy as to China's. One big reason: So many things made in China and shipped to the U.S. originate from multinational corporations that have either established their own factories or contracted out to manufacturers in China that produce largely for the American market. The U.S. imported $197 billion of goods from China last year. At the current 30% pace of increase, those imports could reach $254 billion this year. A levy of 27.5% on those products would lead to $70 billion in total tariffs. Of that amount, 70% would be borne by American companies such as Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Nike Inc. and Liz Claiborne Inc., according to estimates by economist Andy Xie of Morgan Stanley. He said that would deal a big blow to their earnings, jolting stock markets. Companies also may be forced to pass along some of those costs to their customers, which could result in them losing ground to other importers. "For trade-oriented economies," Xie said, "bilateral protectionism decreases competitiveness and simply won't work over time."

China will slow treasury purchases --- shattering the economy


Engdahl 2005 (F. William, Current Concerns, Japan and China Tensions and Washington’s Asia Geopolitics, 4-24, http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2005/03/20050312.php)

China holds one weapon it could conceivably use if pressure from Washington and Tokyo increases as it clearly seems set to. The Bank of China holds some 610 billion dollars in US Treasury debt. Japan holds more, some 840 billions, but the size of China’s holding is still strategic. At present, with the dollar dependent on huge daily inflows of foreign investment to avoid crash, were China, the world’s second largest dollar holder after Japan, to decide to even temporarily boycott dollar purchases, let alone to begin selling holdings of same, it would force Japan to again turn on the inflationary printing presses as it did in March 2004. Or there would be danger of dollar free-fall. Yet Japan is ill-equipped to repeat the Herculean dollar rescue of March 2004. The recent comments by the South Korean government about shifting from dollar to Euro assets, even though ‘retracted’ the next day, suggest that Korea and China could be brought to such drastic measures or threat of same if the pressure rises. Notably in this light, there are indications that trade between Japan and China has already begun to suffer. In February, Japan’s trade surplus with China shrank year-on-year for the second month in a row. It fell 22% to ten billion dollars, three times worse than forecast in Japan. More than one third all Japanese exports today go to China according to OECD data. Japanese economic growth is not looking robust and talk of entering yet another recession is growing. For now these tensions remain as background factors, but the trends have become clear enough to warrant growing concern in the region. Any escalation on any front could have devastating consequences for world economic growth and even for world peace.

Climate Deal 2NC

Obama reelection is critical to a global climate deal


Geman, 1/5/2012 (Ben, Report says global climate deal hinges on Obama reelection, The Hill, p. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/202539-report-global-climate-deal-hinges-on-obama-reelection-)

Prospects for striking a binding global climate deal by 2015 are probably toast if President Obama loses in November. That’s among the conclusions in a wide-ranging, new climate and green energy outlook from banking giant HSBC’s research branch. A major outcome from the United Nations climate talks in December was a plan to craft a deal by 2015 — one that would include big, developing nations such as China — and have it come into force by 2020. But Obama’s main Republican White House rivals are critical of emissions limits and skeptical of climate science. HSBC predicts an international agreement by 2015 is highly unlikely if Obama loses the election. From their research note: [T]he prospects for a new global climate deal in 2015 depend considerably on the election of a pro-climate action president. The election of a President opposed to climate action will not only damage growth prospects for low-carbon solutions in the USA itself, but will make the hard task of negotiating a new global agreement by 2015 almost impossible.

Climate leadership is critical to solve warming – prevents extinction.


Moon 10/25/2009 (Ban Ki – secretary general of the United Nations, We Can Do It, New York Times, p. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html)

Every day, the critical December summit in Copenhagen grows closer. All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind. Yet agreement on what to do still eludes us. How can this be? The issues are complex, affecting everything from national economies to individual lifestyles. They involve political trade-offs and commitments of resources no leader can undertake lightly. We could see all that at recent climate negotiations in Bangkok. Where we needed progress, we saw gridlock. Yet the elements of a deal are on the table. All we require to put them in place is political will. We need to step back from narrow national interest and engage in frank and constructive discussion in a spirit of global common cause. In this, we can be optimistic. Meeting in London earlier this week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the leaders of 17 major economies (responsible for some 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions) that success in Copenhagen is within reach—if they themselves engage, and especially if they themselves go to Copenhagen to push an agenda for change. U.S. leadership is crucial. That is why I am encouraged by the spirit of compromise shown in the bipartisan initiative announced last week by John Kerry and Lindsey Graham. Here was a pair of U.S. senators — one Republican, the other Democratic — coming together to bridge their parties’ differences to address climate change in a spirit of genuine give-and-take. We cannot afford another period where the United States stands on the sidelines. An engaged United States can lead the world to seal a deal to combat climate change in Copenhagen. An indecisive or insufficiently engaged United States will cause unnecessary — and ultimately unaffordable — delay in concrete strategies and policies to beat this looming challenge. Leaders across the globe are increasingly showing the engagement and leadership we need. Last month, President Barack Obama joined more than 100 others at a climate change summit at U.N. headquarters in New York — sending a clear message of solidarity and commitment. So did the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea, all of whom pledged to promote the development of clean energy technologies and ensure that Copenhagen is a success. Japan’s prime minister promised a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, laying down a marker for other industrialized nations. The European Union, too, has pledged to make a 30 percent reduction as part of a global agreement. Norway has announced its readiness for a 40 percent cut in emissions. Brazil has unveiled plans to substantially cut emissions from deforestation. India and China are implanting programs to curb emissions as well.




Download 1.8 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   61



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review