Unnamed: 0
int64 0
241k
| Full-Document
stringlengths 96
265k
| Citation
stringlengths 1
50k
| Extract
stringlengths 34
30.6k
| Abstract
stringlengths 8
8.56k
| #CharsDocument
int64 96
265k
| #CharsAbstract
int64 8
8.56k
| #CharsExtract
int64 34
30.6k
| #WordsDocument
int64 20
41.6k
| #WordsAbstract
int64 4
1.34k
| #WordsExtract
int64 11
4.68k
| AbsCompressionRatio
float64 0
0.99
| ExtCompressionRatio
float64 0
1
| OriginalDebateFileName
stringlengths 19
104
| DebateCamp
stringclasses 30
values | Tag
stringclasses 15
values | Year
stringclasses 11
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,700 |
Must-read article by William Leogrande on Foreign Policy about The Cuba Lobby in DC, and their influence over Washington. I have a couple issues with this article:¶ 1) the headline “Castro-hating right wing”. To clarify, they’re not the only ones who hate Castro. An overwhelming majority of Cuban-Americans have no love for Fidel and Raul, and most of us are not right-wing.¶ 2) It depicts the Cuba Lobby as the most powerful lobbying group in America. They are not. Their PAC raised only $500,000 last election cycle, almost a 40% drop from what they raised in 2008, and is ranked 1,206 out of all PACs in campaign contribution amounts by OpenSecrets.org. They are not drawing in new donors who actually care about maintaining the embargo, only donors who care about gaining access to our Cuban-American members of Congress. Their influence is directly proportional to salience and urgency (or completely lack thereof) of Cuba policy within foreign policy circles. In other words, in the list of foreign policy priorities our country faces, Cuba ranks very low, and any fruit borne of reforms implemented today will not be seen for many years. So in the cost-benefit analysis that goes on in every DC bureaucrats head, the immediate cost of having the insufferable Mario Diaz-Balart or Mauricio Claver-Carone jamming their noses up your ass and screaming “communist apologists!” through the halls of Capitol Hill, even if they can’t really do anything to you, is usually higher than any benefit that may come from pushing for changes in Cuba policy. Meanwhile, they’re support in both the Cuban-American and larger American communities has been steadily plumeting over the past decade. The minute Cuba becomes a half-way real priority for the Administration or State Department, you will see the Cuba Lobby’s “influence” drop to a level on par with their OpenSecrets ranking.
|
(William Vidal, On Two Shores, “The Cuba Lobby represents itself, not the Cuban-American community,” 4/12/13, http://ontwoshores.com/?p=2088, accessed 6/29/13 , IS)
|
I have a couple issues with this article It depicts the Cuba Lobby as the most powerful lobbying group in America. They are not. Their PAC raised only $500,000 last election cycle, almost a 40% drop from what they raised in 2008, and is ranked 1,206 out of all PACs in campaign contribution amounts They are not drawing in new donors only donors who care about gaining access to our Cuban-American members of Congress. in the list of foreign policy priorities our country faces, Cuba ranks very low, and any fruit borne of reforms implemented today will not be seen for many years.
|
Cuba Lobby is small- has no political weight - easing of travel ban proves no backlash
| 1,877 | 87 | 581 | 306 | 16 | 103 | 0.052288 | 0.336601 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,701 |
Right-wing U.S. Republicans are up in arms over Cuba again. Their ostensible cause for concern is last week's visit to the island by Beyoncé and Jay-Z, who were photographed in Havana, apparently celebrating their wedding anniversary.
|
Tidsall 4/8 - assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist (Simon, “Time for the U.S. and Cuba to Kiss and Make Up,” CNN, 8 April 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba, accessed 25 June 2013
|
Republicans are up in arms over Cuba again. Their cause for concern is Beyoncé and Jay-Z, who were photographed in Havana, apparently celebrating their wedding anniversary.
|
Republicans oppose travel to Cuba –Jay-Z and Beyoncé trip
| 234 | 57 | 172 | 36 | 9 | 26 | 0.25 | 0.722222 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,702 |
The Republican Party’s 2012 Platform states that they will not lift “trade, travel, and financial sanctions” until Cuba’s government reflects “the principles codified in U.S. law“.
|
All Things Expounded 12 ([Blog Powered by WordPress], “The Republican Party Platform and the Cuban Embargo,” 7 October 2012, http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/2012/10/the-republican-party-platform-and-the-cuban-embargo/, accessed 27 June 2013
|
Republican Party states that they will not lift travel sanctions” until Cuba’s government reflects “the principles codified in U.S. law
|
Republicans won’t lift the travel embargo – plan will be a fight
| 180 | 64 | 135 | 26 | 12 | 20 | 0.461538 | 0.769231 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,703 |
A few weeks back, the Cuba-Democracy PAC held its annual fundraising luncheon in Miami, Florida, where politicos and politicians put their party politics aside, in an effort to show their united support for a ‘free Cuba.’ In attendance to the pro-embargo, anti-Castro event were Senator Menendez and Rep. Joe Garcia, as well as Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart.
|
Manjarres 3/28 – Managing Editor at the Shark Tank (Javier, “FL Democrat Breaks From Wasserman Schultz and Others-‘Lift the U.S.-Cuban Embargo,’” Shark Tank, 28 March 2013, http://shark-tank.net/2013/03/28/fl-democrat-breaks-from-wasserman-schultz-and-others-lift-the-u-s-cuban-embargo/, Accessed 27 June 2013
|
Cuba-Democracy PAC show their united support for a ‘free Cuba.’ In attendance to the pro-embargo, anti-Castro event were Senator Menendez and Garcia, as well as Rubio Cruz Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart
|
Menendez opposes the plan
| 440 | 25 | 200 | 66 | 4 | 30 | 0.060606 | 0.454545 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,704 |
Marco Rubio, senator, Fla.¶ The freshman senator from Florida might be best known as one of Romney’s (former) potential picks for the VP slot, but Marco Rubio has also emerged as a foreign-policy player in his own right. Fluent in Spanish and a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence as well as the Foreign Relations Committee, Rubio has made trips to Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Observers closely eyed a foreign-policy speech Rubio gave at the Brookings Institution in April, in which he named neoconservative Robert Kagan’s book “The World America Made” as important in shaping his view of U.S. responsibilities on the global stage. Rubio has also aligned himself with the likes of John McCain (supporting a more active U.S. role in Libya, for instance) and George W. Bush (insisting that the United States can’t rely on the United Nations to deal with Syria and Iran). But Rubio, whose parents emigrated from Cuba, holds relatively moderate views on immigration — he has floated an alternative to the Dream Act that would grant legal status to some children of undocumented immigrants — opening a rift with more conservative members of the GOP. According to at least one fellow senator, Joe Lieberman, I, Conn., Rubio is a “workhorse” when it comes to foreign policy.
|
Bangor Daily News 12 ([Maine news, sports, politics and election results, and obituaries], “The 50 most powerful Republicans (including Collins and Snowe), according to Foreign Policy,” 26 August 2012, http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/26/politics/the-50-most-powerful-republicans-including-collins-and-snowe-according-to-foreign-policy/, Accessed 27 June 2013
|
Rubio best known as one of Romney’s potential picks for the VP slot also emerged as a foreign-policy player and a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence as well as the Foreign Relations Committee Rubio aligned himself with McCain and Bush Rubio holds relatively moderate views on immigration Rubio is a “workhorse” when it comes to foreign policy
|
Rubio’s key on foreign policy – magnifies the link
| 1,309 | 50 | 356 | 216 | 9 | 59 | 0.041667 | 0.273148 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,705 |
Elected just last November, Cruz has quickly become an influential conservative voice in Congress and he has already attracted 2016 presidential buzz. Latino groups have also closely watched how Cruz, the son of a Cuban immigrant father and one of two Hispanic Republicans in the Senate, handles the issue. His standing in the party has led immigration-reform proponents to covet his support for a reform package.
|
Fabian 4/2 – Political Editor at Fusion at ABC News (Jordan, “Why Ted Cruz Is Holding Out on Immigration Reform,” ABC News, 2 April 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reform-senator-ted-cruz-conservative-holdout/story?id=18864224#.UcyKnhaE6JU, Accessed 27 June 2013
|
Cruz quickly become an influential conservative voice in Congress and he has already attracted 2016 presidential buzz
|
Cruz is key to agenda – magnifies the link
| 413 | 42 | 117 | 66 | 9 | 17 | 0.136364 | 0.257576 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,706 |
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, South Florida's longest-serving member of Congress, is on a new list of Washington's 25 most influential women.¶ National Journal consulted 174 political insiders to compile the list.¶ The Miami-Dade Republican, who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "embodies many of the elements of the South Florida district that she represents, complete with an almost manic energy and a conservative zeal that she tempers with her fight for gay rights," National Journal says.
|
Sun Sentinel 12 ([major daily newspaper of Broward and South Palm Beach counties], “Ros-Lehtinen among D.C.'s ‘Most Influential Women,’” 13 July 2012, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-07-13/news/fl-ileana-ros-lehtinen-top-hat-20120713_1_national-journal-dcs-influential-women, Accessed 27 June 2013
|
Ros-Lehtinen Florida's longest-serving member of Congress is on a new list of Washington's 25 most influential women The Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee embodies many of the elements of the district that she represents
|
Ros-Lehtinen is key – enlarges the link
| 505 | 39 | 254 | 76 | 7 | 39 | 0.092105 | 0.513158 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,707 |
The Díaz-Balarts are well known in Florida as an influential family with strong ties to politics. Lincoln Díaz- Balart is a former U.S. congressman; youngest brother Mario currently serves as one.¶ Lincoln and Mario Díaz-Balart are strong Republicans and staunch opponents of the Castro regime, which comes as a bit of an irony, considering the brothers were actually related to Fidel Castro by marriage at one time. [A sister of Rafael Díaz-Balart Sr., Mirta, was Castro’s first wife. They married in 1948, had a son and divorced in 1955.]¶ Díaz-Balart’s father, Rafael Díaz-Balart y Gutiérrez, was a prominent Cuban politician, businessman and diplomat; a man who was larger than life and instilled his four sons with a sense of passion for work.
|
Martinez 12 – journalist and editor (Laura, “Telemundo’s Reporter Without Borders,” Multichannel News, 1 October 2012, http://www.multichannel.com/content/telemundos-reporter-without-borders/139543, accessed 27 June 2013
|
Díaz-Balarts are well known in Florida as an influential family with strong ties to politics Lincoln a former . congressman brother Mario currently serves as one Lincoln and Mario are strong Republicans and staunch opponents of the Castro regime Díaz-Balart’s father was a prominent Cuban politician, businessman and diplomat
|
Diaz-Balart is powerful in Congress – independently magnifies the link – especially in Latin American talks
| 748 | 107 | 325 | 122 | 16 | 49 | 0.131148 | 0.401639 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,708 |
This morning it was abruptly announced that Ozzie Guillen, the first-year manager of the Miami Marlins, would be suspended for five games following comments he made where he offered some mild praise for former Cuban leader Fidel Castro.¶ Guillen was forced to take the unpaid suspension after he came under intense verbal attack from area interest groups. The barrage that the Miami Marlins manager is an example of a powerful interest group that has virtually paralyzed US-Cuba relations in the nation’s capital.¶ Informally referred to by leading writers as the “Cuba Lobby,” this tight-knit group of Political Action Committees (PACs), social organizations, and the lawmakers allied to them have successfully maintained a failed diplomatic freeze, travel ban, and embargo between the United States and Cuba for decades.¶ By exerting its influence, this lobby forces Washington politicians to ignore American public opinion at large. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans favor restoring full diplomatic relations with Cuba, and a majority of Americans wanted to see an end to the embargo as well. Figures and political groups with as varying politics as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Pope, and former president Jimmy Carter have all called for ending the unilateral sanctions.¶ The powerful Cuba lobby, based in the crucial political swing state of Florida, exerts its influence largely through being a powerful political spender. The U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, for example PAC spent a million dollars in 2008, and has already spent a quarter of a million dollars during this election cycle. In 2008 and 2010, the majority of the PAC’s funds went to Democrats, but during the 2012 cycle the organization is spending more heavily in favor of Republicans. It’s treasurer is Gus Machado, a Floridan wealthy auto dealer who regularly raises millions of dollars for charities in the area.¶ At a fancy gala in 2010, the organization brought together leading congressional Democrats and Republicans to support the US-Cuba embargo. “When it comes to the topic of Cuba, first comes Cuba and then comes the party,” said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a leading embargo proponent, at the event. The PAC is the largest foreign policy-related PAC spender according to the Center for Responsive Politics.¶ Although it is frequently referred to as the “Cuba Lobby,” there is little evidence that the policies that the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC and related organizations and individuals help the Cuban people or advance U.S. interests in Cuba. Their hard line has not ended the Castro regime and its abuses, or helped advance the welfare of Cubans. Instead, through campaign donations and campaigns of intimidation, this lobby has effectively paralyzed U.S. policy.
|
Jilani 12 – former Communications and Outreach Coordinator for United Republic and the former Senior Reporter-Blogger for ThinkProgress. His work has also appeared in outlets including Salon and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He graduated from the University of Georgia in 2009. (Zaid Jilani, Republic Report, “It’s Not Just Ozzie Guillen: How The Cuba Lobby Paralyzes U.S. Policy,” 4/10/12, http://www.republicreport.org/2012/ozzie-guillen-cuba-lobby-paralyzes-us-policy/, accessed 6/20/13, IS)
|
this tight-knit group of Political Action Committees social organizations, and the lawmakers allied to them have successfully maintained a failed diplomatic freeze, travel ban, and embargo between the United States and Cuba for decades.¶ By exerting its influence, this lobby forces Washington politicians to ignore American public opinion at large. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans favor restoring full diplomatic relations with Cuba The powerful Cuba lobby, based in the crucial political swing state of Florida, exerts its influence largely through being a powerful political spender
|
Cuban Lobby group opposes travel reform -
| 2,763 | 42 | 607 | 438 | 7 | 90 | 0.015982 | 0.205479 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,709 |
Bureaucracies on both sides of the border struggle to coordinate policies across and within various levels of government including federal, state, and local structures. However, the complexity and interdependence of bi-national issues means there is rarely a clear, single lead department or agency on any given issue on either side of the border. Complicating coordination efforts are the various and often duplicative authorities held by many U.S. and GoM institutions. In addition, the various bi-national interactions at the federal, state, and local levels are often not apparent to the other levels of government. The different government stakeholders often address issues directly and indirectly through bi-lateral institutions, commissions, and agreements.7 The failure to coordinate efforts results in disjointed border policies and activities leading to increased levels of congestion, delay, higher border-crossing costs, and insufficient infrastructure planning. One example of a disjointed effort can be found at coordination related to the establishment and management of land ports of entry (POEs).8 The United States and Mexico have over seven federal departments within each national-level structure with POE related responsibilities.9 Each department and agency has distinct purposes and authorities that span issues ranging from law enforcement to commerce management. Sporadic and disjointed efforts result in departments working toward common end-states (i.e. improved POE development) but doing so in an uncoordinated and non-supporting manner. National efforts to synchronize a whole-of-government approach have been haphazard. Across the border, the GoM has its own bureaucratic structure but suffers from the same challenges. These federal-level challenges are both independent of and repeated within, the numerous state and local agencies that have their own policies and processes. Enhancing coordination among the stakeholders involved in the crossing process provides an opportunity to achieve many benefits including increased security, and reduced system costs through a predictable and coordinated policy structure.10 Prior to attempting bi-national coordination, obtaining consensus on priority efforts at the federal inter-agency level must occur. The United States’ inter-agency policy and coordination processes focus on the development of whole-of-government approaches to issues. However, security-focused agencies, customs-focused agencies, and transportation-focused agencies each have different mandates and nomenclature. This can lead to confusion on which priority topic the federal agencies should be focused on: security, infrastructure, or throughput. Confused, disjointed, and unclear priorities interfere with efforts to get Congressional funding that promotes focused cross-border progress. The structure of the GoM’s departments and agencies is similarly complex with border and national security responsibilities split between the president and eight cabinet departments. Efforts are often duplicated across agencies because roles, responsibilities, and authority are not clearly defined.11 Ambiguous, shifting, and overlapping responsibilities have also led to uncoordinated efforts (and often animosity) between Mexican federal agencies. While overlapping roles in the GoM federal structure may provide some checks and balances across agencies, more often it leads to confusion in both the United States and GoM with regard to authority, roles, responsibilities, and which department should coordinate with what department.
|
Regan 11 — Sean Regan, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard (Sean Regan, Naval War College, 10-28-2011, “U.S. – MEXICO POLICY COORDINATION AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY BORDER POLICY COORDINATION EFFORT”, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555536.pdf, Accessed 08-02-2013 | AK)
|
Bureaucracies on both sides of the border struggle to coordinate policies across and within various levels of government the complexity and interdependence of bi-national issues means there is rarely a clear, single lead department or agency on any given issue Complicating coordination efforts are the various and often duplicative authorities held by many U.S. and GoM institutions the various bi-national interactions at the federal, state, and local levels are not apparent to the other levels of government The failure to coordinate efforts results in disjointed border policies to increased levels of congestion, delay, higher border-crossing costs, and insufficient infrastructure planning One example of a disjointed effort can be found at coordination related to the establishment and management of land ports of entry The U S Mexico have over seven federal departments with POE related responsibilities Each department and agency has distinct purposes and authorities Sporadic and disjointed efforts result in departments working toward common end-states but in an uncoordinated and non-supporting manner National efforts to synchronize a whole-of-government approach have been haphazard Across the border, the GoM suffers from the same challenges obtaining consensus on priority efforts at the federal inter-agency level must occur The U S inter-agency policy and coordination processes focus on the development of whole-of-government approaches security-focused customs-focused agencies, and transportation-focused agencies each have different mandates and nomenclature This can lead to confusion on which priority topic the agencies should be focused on Confused, disjointed, and unclear priorities interfere with efforts to get Congressional funding that promotes cross-border progress Efforts are often duplicated across agencies because roles, responsibilities, and authority are not clearly defined Ambiguous, shifting, and overlapping responsibilities have led to uncoordinated efforts between Mexican federal agencies
|
The government fails at implementing border infrastructure — coordination failures turn the case
| 3,576 | 96 | 2,036 | 485 | 13 | 281 | 0.026804 | 0.579381 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,710 |
It is important to examine if the coordination mechanisms established by Presidents Obama and Calderón in the Twenty-First Century Border Executive Steering Committee (ESC) and the tasks they have chosen to address, have the potential to increase and improve the governance ability of the Government of Mexico. Again, governance has three components: (1) the ability to develop appropriate and collaborative policy; (2) the ability to coordinate the implementation of the policy; and (3) the ability to do so transparently and informatively to the public. The Twenty-First Century Border effort has successfully met the first two components and part of the third and should result, eventually, in improved governance in Mexico. The first component, developing appropriate and collaborative policies, is ongoing and efforts to date appear to have had some success. The 2010 Joint Declaration of Presidents Obama and Calderón established the Twenty-First Century Border Bilateral Executive Steering Committee (ESC). The ESC is composed of high-level representatives from federal government departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities related to the border. For the United States, this includes representatives from the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Defense, and the Office of the United State Trade Representative. For Mexico representatives are from the Secretariats of Foreign Relations, Interior, Finance and Public Credit, Economy, Public Security, Communications and Transportation, Agriculture, and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. This group was charged by the Presidents to make “progress in upgrading border infrastructure; implement innovations in port of entry operations that advance both citizen safety and global competitiveness; and increase our capacity to prevent and address violence and criminality in the border region.”19 The ESC recognized that it must address policy issues that were of mutual benefit to each nation and would demonstrably improve cross-border trade facilitation without decreasing security. In May 2010, the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) identified binational issues for collaborative and coordinated action. These include programs focused on reducing congestion and delays in cross-border traffic; the creation, expansion, or mutual recognition of “trusted shipper” programs (programs allowing enforcement authorities to concentrate their efforts where they are most needed to stop illicit border flows); programs that permit pre-screening, pre-clearance, and pre-inspection of people, goods, and products prior to them arriving at POEs; and, improved bi-national coordination in planning, financing, permitting, designing, building, and operating POEs. National Security Staff representatives indicate there were nearly 21 priority projects identified with topic areas addressing infrastructure to information sharing. ESC members from both nations agreed to the list of priority projects and work is underway to address them. Overall, the bureaucratic structure formed by the Presidents appears to have enhanced the development of coordinated border policies, the first component of governance.
|
Regan 11 — Sean Regan, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard (Sean Regan, Naval War College, 10-28-2011, “U.S. – MEXICO POLICY COORDINATION AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY BORDER POLICY COORDINATION EFFORT”, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555536.pdf, Accessed 08-02-2013 | AK)
|
It is important to examine if the coordination mechanisms established in the Twenty-First Century Border Executive Steering Committee and the tasks they address The Twenty-First Century Border effort has successfully met the first two components and part of the third The first component, developing appropriate and collaborative policies, is ongoing and efforts to date appear to have had success The 2010 Joint Declaration of Obama and Calderón established the Twenty-First Century Border Bilateral Executive Steering Committee This group was charged to make “progress in upgrading border infrastructure; implement innovations in port of entry operations that advance safety and global competitiveness; and increase our capacity to prevent and address violence and criminality in the border region the ESC identified binational issues for collaborative and coordinated action These include programs focused on reducing congestion and delays in cross-border traffic creation, expansion, or mutual recognition of “trusted shipper” programs programs that permit pre-screening, pre-clearance, and pre-inspection of people, goods, and products prior to arriving at POEs; and, improved coordination in planning, financing, permitting, designing, building, and operating POEs there were nearly 21 priority projects identified with topic areas addressing infrastructure to information sharing ESC members from both nations agreed to the list and work is underway to address them the bureaucratic structure formed by the Presidents appears to have enhanced the development of coordinated border policies
|
Current investments in the border solve the aff — the 21st Century Border Initiative is sufficient
| 3,248 | 98 | 1,596 | 451 | 16 | 223 | 0.035477 | 0.494457 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,711 |
Similarly, the GoM has made progress in adjusting its coordination structures for greater effectiveness. The GoM established a five-group structure that aligns with the United States’ structure. The five groups include an infrastructure planning subcommittee that aligns with the U.S. Infrastructure Planning group and a law enforcement and security subcommittee that parallels the U.S. Corridor Security effort. Further, it established three subcommittees that align very closely with the U.S. Secure Flows effort. These subcommittees address commerce facilitation, bi-national risk management, and preclearance and pre-inspection. State Department representatives have remarked this is a remarkable step forward in the GoM’s inter-agency coordination and participation in cooperative policy-making.21 It is also a strong indication of the GoM’s commitment to ensuring bi-national approaches to important topics. An ESC working group met in December 2010 and agreed upon progressive crossborder efficiency and effectiveness goals that would be accomplished within a 12-month period. To manage the implementation of these goals a bi-national, co-chaired structure was established. These groups should improve coordination and efficiency. The bi-national groups seek to address:
|
Regan 11 — Sean Regan, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard (Sean Regan, Naval War College, 10-28-2011, “U.S. – MEXICO POLICY COORDINATION AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY BORDER POLICY COORDINATION EFFORT”, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555536.pdf, Accessed 08-02-2013 | AK)
|
the GoM has made progress in adjusting its coordination structures for greater effectiveness The GoM established a five-group structure that aligns with the U S structure The five groups include an infrastructure planning subcommittee and a law enforcement and security subcommittee it established three subcommittees that align closely with the U.S. Secure Flows effort State Department representatives have remarked this is a remarkable step forward in the GoM’s inter-agency coordination and participation in cooperative policy-making It is also a strong indication of the GoM’s commitment to ensuring bi-national approaches An ESC working group agreed upon progressive crossborder efficiency and effectiveness goals that would be accomplished a bi-national, co-chaired structure was established These groups should improve coordination and efficiency
|
And, it ensures coordination — the status quo solves
| 1,277 | 52 | 854 | 173 | 9 | 118 | 0.052023 | 0.682081 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,712 |
President Enrique Peña Nieto expects at least one third of the investment total to be invested in transportation and communications projects that will be funded by both public and private investors. This will reportedly include new highways, ports and railroads to connect all areas of the country, thereby improving travel and logistics for businesses operating in Mexico.¶ “Communications and Transport Minister Gerardo Ruiz Esparza said major works include construction or modernization of 5,410 kilometers of highways, the upgrading of six regional airports and a number of sea ports, as well as the construction of three intercity passenger railways, a new line for the Monterrey subway system, and a light passenger train system,” writes the Wall Street Journal.¶ In 2013 alone, the Mexican government reportedly plans to spend nearly $3 billion to modernize roads, according to the nation’s General Director of Highways, Hector Arvizu. The money will be used to ensure the economy, efficiency, safety and quality of airports, highways, ports, railroads and official buildings.¶ “Mexican trains now haul about 14 percent of the nearly $500 billion worth of goods that cross the Mexico-U.S. border each year, up from 10 percent in 2009,” writes Reuters. “With some saying bilateral trade could double in the next five years, having already jumped 62 percent between 2009 and 2012, it’s a trend that looks set to continue.”¶ Over the next five years, at least $100 billion has been allocated to improve these key parts of Mexico’s infrastructure, including funds that have been earmarked to build the nation’s first high-speed rail links. This move is expected to revive passenger rail in Mexico City and the Riviera Maya, connecting Cancun real estate with the colonial city of Merida, which is just a short ride inland on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. ¶ In addition, Mexico’s transport and communications authority has vowed to invest at least an additional $450 million in its Gulf ports, including new access roads, dredging and a new railway line that will make the port more accessible and efficient for various exporters. This year the government already completed a new entrance into Mahahual’s Costa Maya Cruise Port, which is a popular destination for international travelers in the state of Quintana Roo south of Cancun on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula.
|
Houghton 13 (Richard Houghton, writter for Mexico Real Estate News and Blog. 7/23/13. "Mexico Announces $316 Billion Infrastructure Investment Plan". www.investmentpropertiesmexico.com/mexico-real-estate-news-blog/2013/07/mexico-announces-316-billion-infrastructure-investment-plan)
|
Nieto expects at least one third of the investment total to be invested in transportation projects improving travel and logistics for businesses operating in Mexico. the Mexican government reportedly plans to spend nearly $3 billion to modernize roads Mexican trains now haul about 14 percent of the nearly $500 billion worth of goods that cross the Mexico-U.S. border each year, up from 10 percent in 2009, . “With some saying bilateral trade could double in the next five years, having already jumped 62 percent between 2009 and 2012, it’s a trend that looks set to continue. at least $100 billion has been allocated to improve these key parts of Mexico’s infrastructure Mexico’s transport authority has vowed to invest at least an additional $450 million that will make the port more accessible and efficient for various exporters
|
Status quo solves trade and border infrastructure
| 2,365 | 49 | 835 | 373 | 7 | 136 | 0.018767 | 0.364611 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,713 |
The Santa Teresa Port of Entry is stretched to the limit. The border crossing, which opened in 1992, was modernized in 1998 to accommodate growing commercial and passenger traffic. But since Foxconn set up manufacturing operations in 2009 at San Jerónimo, just south of the port, activity there has exploded, said New Mexico Border Authority Executive Director William Mattiace. This year, northbound commercial crossings will surpass 100,000, more than double the 45,900 crossings in 2008, before Foxconn opened. And the Border Authority projects 540,000 northbound passenger vehicle crossings this year, up from 374,000 in 2008. To manage all that traffic, the port is getting a $21.5 million makeover to double its capacity, funded by the U.S. departments of Homeland Security and Transportation.¶ Commercial crossing lanes will expand from two to four, and passenger lanes from one to three.¶ A new inspection station will be built for northbound trucks, with modern cameras, X-ray equipment and “biotech tags” to track shipments after they leave the port, Mattiace said. Infrastructure improvements are also under way at Santa Teresa’s two industrial parks, beginning with a $3.6 million overhaul of the water system to increase pressure flow, expand storage capacity and improve water quality, said Doña Ana County Assistant Manager Sue Padilla. A $5 million arsenic removal system is also planned. The county manages all infrastructure improvements because Santa Teresa is not an incorporated area. International Business Accelerator Executive Director Jerry Pacheco said water improvements are critical to attract more park tenants. “The water system is very old,” Pacheco said. “In some cases, it was failing fire suppression tests.” Park tenants formed a Border Industrial Association in 2008 that includes 60 member companies. It’s become a central voice in setting infrastructure priorities, said Guillermo López, general manager for printing firm Monarch Litho Inc. at Santa Teresa. “We’re not a city, so we depend on Doña Ana County to get things done,” López said. “By getting together to address common issues, we’ve gotten momentum going.”¶ Other capital projects include improvements to the county airport and a $1.5 million hazardous materials station for emergency responses to spills, which will allow park tenants to manage a broader range of chemicals, Padilla said. The county is also lobbying U.S. Customs to establish operations at the county airport to permit international air traffic.
|
Robinson-Avila 11 (Kevin, NMBW Senior Reporter at Albuquerque Business First, “Border boom brings new infrastructure,” December 9th, 2011, http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/print-edition/2011/12/09/border-boom-brings-new-infrastructure.html?page=all //EH)
|
This year, northbound commercial crossings will surpass 100,000, more than double the 45,900 crossings in 2008 To manage all that traffic, the port is getting a $21.5 million makeover to double its capacity, funded by the U.S. departments of Homeland Security and Transportation. Commercial crossing lanes will expand from two to four, and passenger lanes from one to three. A new inspection station will be built for northbound trucks, with modern cameras, X-ray equipment and “biotech tags” to track shipments after they leave the port Infrastructure improvements are also under way at Santa Teresa’s two industrial parks, beginning with a $3.6 million overhaul of the water system to increase pressure flow, expand storage capacity and improve water quality By getting together to address common issues, we’ve gotten momentum going.” Other capital projects include improvements to the county airport and a $1.5 million hazardous materials station for emergency responses to spills, which will allow park tenants to manage a broader range of chemicals
|
Squo upgrades are sufficient to solve
| 2,513 | 37 | 1,053 | 383 | 6 | 162 | 0.015666 | 0.422977 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,714 |
For all these reasons, the United States should strengthen its relationship with its neighbor, starting with immigration laws that support the binational individuals and communities that already exist in the United States and encourage the legal immigration of Mexican workers and their families. U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to send such legislation to Congress, but a strong anti-immigrant wing within the Republican Party and the slow U.S. economic recovery pose significant barriers to a comprehensive and far-reaching deal. Nevertheless, the United States and Mexico urgently need to invest in border infrastructure, standardize their customs forms, and work to better facilitate legal trade between them. Furthermore, getting Americans to recognize the benefits of cross-border production will be an uphill battle, but it is one worth fighting in order to boost the United States' exports, jobs, and overall economic growth. On the security front, U.S. efforts must move beyond cracking down on drug trafficking to helping Mexico combat crime more generally. Security links have expanded since 2007, when Washington and Mexico City began taking on drug traffickers together. Today, Obama should support Peña Nieto's strategy of cracking down on violence rather than try to eliminate the drug trade. Washington should also expand its law enforcement training programs, currently conducted primarily at the federal level, to Mexico's state and local police forces and justice systems. Washington and Mexico City should also invest together in border community projects and programs that support social and economic development in often neglected and crime-ridden areas.
|
O’Neil 13 — Shannon K. O’Neil, Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of the forthcoming book Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States, and the Road Ahead (Oxford University Press, 2013), from which this essay is adapted (Shannon K. O’Neil, Council on Foreign Relations, March/April 2013, “Mexico Makes It”, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/mexico-makes/p30098, Accessed 08-01-2013 | AK)
|
the U S should strengthen its relationship with its neighbor, starting with immigration laws that support the binational individuals and communities that already exist in the U S On the security front, U.S. efforts must move beyond cracking down on drug trafficking to helping Mexico combat crime more generally Today, Obama should support Peña Nieto's strategy of cracking down on violence rather than try to eliminate the drug trade Washington should expand its law enforcement training programs to Mexico's state and local police forces and justice systems Washington and Mexico City should invest in border community projects and programs that support social and economic development in neglected and crime-ridden areas
|
Alternate causalities to an effective border policy — immigration and law enforcement
| 1,685 | 85 | 723 | 249 | 12 | 110 | 0.048193 | 0.441767 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,715 |
AS THE weak recovery continues, various experts continue to linger on the importance of manufacturing to growth in output and employment. America's economy will work again, many argue, when its workers are once again engaged in the critical task of making things. I continue to struggle to understand this focus. Think of the kinds of tasks that make a product possible: the people who identify a market opportunity and come up with a concept, the people who produce a workable product design, the people who design a production method and supply chain, the people who find supplies and labour at prices and qualities consistent with profitable production, the people who manage the logistics of bringing inputs together, the people who actually assemble the inputs, the people who manage the logistics of delivering the goods to markets, the people who actually sell the goods to customers, and the people who track these processes and add up the numbers to make sure things are working as planned. Why is the assembly step obviously the most important to economic activity? Manufacturing enthusiasts often cite the benefits of manufacturing's high compensation levels for middle-skilled work, but this is a mistaken idea. In the tradable sector, high wages are possible only when there are high levels of value creation. That corresponds to high skill levels or capital intensities, both of which limit the extent to which high-wage manufacturing jobs will be responsible for mass employment. Low-skill jobs in tradable sectors will tend to flow to places with very low labour costs. Of course, America can employ lots of people in non-tradable, middle-skill manufacturing jobs: things like home-building, on-site prepared food manufacture, and the production of shortened hair. Yet employment in construction, restaurant, and personal service jobs doesn't satisfy manufacturing enthusiasts, despite the ample market appetite for such workers. Some folks fret that without manufacturing, America will struggle to export enough to pay for the imports it wants. This is a red herring. America manufactures and exports trillions in goods. As the dollar continues its imbalance-reducing decline, these figures are likely to grow, but that won't necessarily translate into many more jobs. Meanwhile, America exports over half a trillion dollars in services every year and runs a service-sector trade surplus. America is at no risk of running out of things to sell to foreigners.¶ Others worry that once the assembly step has been moved abroad, others will follow: logistics and management, then design. I think that in most cases, this has things backwards. Firms ship goods abroad when the value-added from being in America's skilled, innovative centres of production has been exhausted. America's failure is not in retaining low value-added jobs; it's in undermining the growth of its high-value-added places, mostly by making it hard for skilled workers to move to them. High housing costs from land-use regulation are an obstacle to domestic migration, and barriers to immigration of skilled-workers from abroad amount to a massive, ongoing own-goal on the part of the American government and economy. A great many people argue in favour of investments in education, training, science research and infrastructure on the grounds that these will boost American manufacturing. I agree that those investments are a good idea and that they're likely to improve the climate for American industry, but I'm uncomfortable in using the latter to justify the former. Such investments will boost economic activity generally, including the high-value-added, knowledge-intensive design and service work at which the American economy excels. Meanwhile, there are far more effective (though economically costly) ways to boost manufacturing. If the goal is to boost American industry, one may as well slap tariffs on foreign goods. That shouldn't be the goal, however. A fast growing, full-employment, high-wage economy should. There's no reason to think that actual manufacture must be responsible for a large share of employment in that kind of economy. Of course, it could be the case that Americans feel that some income redistribution is necessary, and they prefer to do it through effective subsidies to manufacturing employment rather than through disability payments to the long-term unemployed, or funding for retraining, or investment in infrastructure. From an efficiency standpoint, that's an extremely peculiar preference, but from a political economy standpoint it isn't too hard to understand. It sure is troubling that that seems to be the direction of enthusiasm in America, however.
|
The Economist 11 (“How important is it to make things?,” August 30th, 2011, The Economist Free Exchange of Economics, http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/08/manufacturing?page=1#sort-comments //EH)
|
America's economy will work again, many argue, when its workers are once again engaged in the critical task of making things. I continue to struggle to understand this focus. Think of the kinds of tasks that make a product possible: the people who identify a market opportunity and come up with a concept, the people who produce a workable product design, the people who design a production method and supply chain, the people who find supplies and labour at prices and qualities consistent with profitable production, the people who manage the logistics of bringing inputs together, the people who actually assemble the inputs, the people who manage the logistics of delivering the goods to markets, the people who actually sell the goods to customers, and the people who track these processes and add up the numbers to make sure things are working as planned. Why is the assembly step obviously the most important to economic activity In the tradable sector, high wages are possible only when there are high levels of value creation. That corresponds to high skill levels or capital intensities, both of which limit the extent to which high-wage manufacturing jobs will be responsible for mass employment. Low-skill jobs in tradable sectors will tend to flow to places with very low labour costs Of course, America can employ lots of people in non-tradable, middle-skill manufacturing jobs: things like home-building, on-site prepared food manufacture, and the production of shortened hair Some folks fret that without manufacturing, America will struggle to export enough to pay for the imports it wants. This is a red herring America manufactures and exports trillions in goods. As the dollar continues its imbalance-reducing decline, these figures are likely to grow America is at no risk of running out of things to sell to foreigners. Others worry that once the assembly step has been moved abroad, others will follow: logistics and management, then design. I think that in most cases, this has things backwards America's failure is not in retaining low value-added jobs; it's in undermining the growth of its high-value-added places, mostly by making it hard for skilled workers to move to them. fast growing, full-employment, high-wage economy should. There's no reason to think that actual manufacture must be responsible for a large share of employment in that kind of economy
|
Alt causes – labor, wages
| 4,684 | 26 | 2,387 | 725 | 5 | 386 | 0.006897 | 0.532414 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,716 |
A North American version of the European Union was always a long shot. Having one giant dealing with two relative dwarves is unlikely to produce a deal acceptable to all parties. Moreover, North America lacked the historical impetus of the second world war, which gave European integration a sense of purpose. Nonetheless, even the modest goals set in the years following NAFTA's passage have been blocked. One big reason is the September 11th attacks, which led the United States to redouble its border enforcement. Whereas in the 1990s Americans discussed eliminating border controls with Canada, earlier this month the United States Government Accountability Office reported that less than 1% of the country's northern border had an “acceptable level of security”. To the south, Mexico's raging drug war and stream of migrants make the prospect of relaxing controls there politically unthinkable. Mr Obama has struggled to fight off new restrictions, like Arizona's harsh state law on immigration. America's lengthy recession also diminished the appeal of further trade liberalisation. NAFTA has always had its doubters in the Democratic Party, including Mr Obama when he was competing for its nomination. As a candidate, Mr Obama vowed to renegotiate the deal. Although he has not honoured that pledge—much to the relief of Mexico and Canada—the United States did cancel a programme allowing Mexican lorry drivers to work in America in 2009, in violation of its NAFTA obligations. Mexico retaliated with a series of tariffs aimed at the states of legislators who opposed the programme. America is not the only country to blame. Because Mr Harper runs a minority government that could fall at any time, he has chiefly focused on short-term, voter-pleasing issues like cracking down on illegal immigration. Canada imposed new visa restrictions on Mexican visitors in 2009, angering the Mexican government. And whereas Canadian companies once strongly backed regional integration, their focus has now shifted to Asia, turning their North American agenda almost entirely towards the United States. Mr Harper has followed suit: although he has talked of a hemispheric foreign policy and signed free-trade deals with Colombia, Panama and Peru, he is now working on aligning Canadian and American security measures and regulations. The main obstacle to trilateral co-operation is that Canada and Mexico are much more interested in their relations with the United States than they are in each other. Until that changes, the next North American summit will probably prove just as difficult to schedule.
|
The Economist (The Economist, from the print edition The Americas, February 24, 2011, “To each his own: The push for deeper ties peters out,” http://www.economist.com/node/18229546, alp)
|
A North American version of the E U was always a long shot. one giant dealing with two relative dwarves is unlikely to produce a deal acceptable to all parties. North America lacked the historical impetus of the second world war, September 11th led the U S to redouble its border enforcement. in the 90s Americans discussed eliminating border controls with Canada To the south, Mexico's raging drug war and stream of migrants make the prospect of relaxing controls politically unthinkable. Obama has struggled to fight off new restrictions, like Arizona's harsh state law America's lengthy recession diminished the appeal of further trade liberalisation. Obama vowed to renegotiate the deal. Although he has not honoured that pledge the U S did cancel a programme allowing Mexican lorry drivers to work in America in 2009, in violation of NAFTA Mr Harper runs a minority government that could fall at any time, he has chiefly focused on short-term, voter-pleasing issues like cracking down on immigration. Canada imposed new visa restrictions on Mexican visitors Canadian focus has now shifted to Asia, turning their North American agenda towards the U S The main obstacle to trilateral co-operation is that Canada and Mexico are much more interested in their relations with the U S than each other.
|
Aff can’t overcome structural alt causes to trilateralism – necessary but not sufficient
| 2,597 | 88 | 1,299 | 406 | 13 | 212 | 0.03202 | 0.522167 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,717 |
The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy has been relatively small, primarily because total trade with both Mexico and Canada was equal to less than 5% of U.S. GDP at the time NAFTA went into effect. Because many, if not most, of the economic effects came as a result of U.S.-Mexico trade liberalization, it is also important to take into account that two-way trade with Mexico was equal to an even smaller percentage of GDP (1.4%) in 1994. Thus, any changes in trade patterns would not be expected to be significant in relation to the overall U.S. economy. A major challenge in assessing NAFTA is separating the effects that came as a result of the agreement from other factors. U.S. trade with Mexico and Canada was already growing prior to NAFTA and it likely would have continued to do so without an agreement. A 2003 report by the Congressional Budget Office observed that it was difficult to precisely measure the effects of NAFTA. It estimated that NAFTA likely increased annual U.S. GDP, but by a very small amount – “probably no more than a few billion dollars, or a few hundredths of a percent.”52 In some sectors, trade-related effects could have been more significant, especially in those industries that were more exposed to the removal of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, such as the textile, apparel, automotive, and agriculture industries.
|
Villareal and Ferugson 13 (M. Angeles and Ian F., specialists in international trade and finance, Congressional Research Service, February 21, 2013, “NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf, alp)
|
The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy has been relatively small because total trade with Mexico and Canada was equal to less than 5% of U.S. GDP at the time NAFTA went into effect. two-way trade with Mexico was equal to an even smaller percentage of GDP (1.4%) in 1994. any changes in trade patterns would not be significant in relation to the overall U.S. economy. . U.S. trade with Mexico and Canada was already growing prior to NAFTA and would have continued to do so without an agreement. A 2003 report by the C B O observed that it was difficult to precisely measure the effects of NAFTA. It estimated that NAFTA increased U.S. GDP, but by a very small amount no more than a few billion dollars, or a few hundredths of a percent.
|
The impact to NAFTA trade is low magnitude – statistics and studies
| 1,371 | 68 | 748 | 233 | 12 | 139 | 0.051502 | 0.596567 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,718 |
Studies by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) on the effects of NAFTA pointed out the difficulty in isolating the agreement’s effects from other factors. Although the effects of NAFTA are not easily measured, the USITC provided some estimates over the years. A 2003 study estimated that U.S. GDP could experience an increase between 0.1% and 0.5% upon full implementation of the agreement.53 Another USITC study that was congressionally mandated in 1997 offered a comprehensive assessment of the operation and effects of NAFTA after three years.54 The report estimated that NAFTA had a small, but positive, effect on the overall U.S. economy. Some of the findings include the following: data inadequacies at the industry level made it difficult to isolate the effects of NAFTA on absolute trade flows; U.S. trade with NAFTA partners increased more rapidly than U.S. trade with the rest of the world; the share of U.S. exports in the Mexican market increased by a higher percentage than the share of total imports from other countries; industries such as autos, chemicals, textiles, and electronics benefitted by achieving synergies across the North American market.55
|
Villareal and Ferugson 13 (M. Angeles and Ian F., specialists in international trade and finance, Congressional Research Service, February 21, 2013, “NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf, alp)
|
Studies by the U.S. International Trade Commission pointed out the difficulty in isolating the agreement’s effects from other factors. effects of NAFTA are not easily measured GDP could experience an increase 0.1% upon full implementation findings include the following: data inadequacies at the industry level made it difficult to isolate the effects of NAFTA on absolute trade flows
|
Prefer our ev – their studies are flawed
| 1,180 | 40 | 384 | 185 | 8 | 58 | 0.043243 | 0.313514 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,719 |
Unfortunately, a North American vision as a development strategy for Mexico has been missing since well before the recent electoral season. Since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico had enormous political hurdles to articulate a vision for North America that could tap into the opportunities arising from the high levels of economic and social integration that exist in North America. With NAFTA, Mexico agreed to link its economic future to the United States and to pursue a dramatic process of economic liberalization, expecting that it would help to eventually reduce Mexico’s development gaps with the United States and Canada. This optimistic picture of North American integration assumed that NAFTA would progressively and inevitably lead to a repeat of the pre-21st century European success story, where regional integration effectively addressed existing regional asymmetries. The transition toward democracy and the decade of political turmoil in Mexico that followed the implementation of NAFTA, starting with the Zapatista movement and followed by the assassination of a presidential candidate and other political leaders, complicated the country´s ability to continue the program of economic liberalization that had started in the late 1980s. With the loss of control of the Mexican Congress by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in 1997, and then with the arrival of the first opposition president, the PAN’s (National Action Party) Vicente Fox in 2000, after more than 70 years of PRI power, political polarization in Mexico has stalled additional reforms. To this date, almost two decades after NAFTA was proposed, major liberalization of sectors that are critical for the competitiveness of the Mexican economy, such as energy, labor and telecommunications, remains stuck in the Mexican Congress. Slow rates of economic growth, persistent high levels of poverty and inequality, as well as increasing regional disparities between the north and the south of Mexico, have often been cited as evidence that the “optimistic experiment” called NAFTA has failed. The debate regarding the impact of NAFTA on Mexico’s development is beyond the scope of this essay, but one can safely state that, while the narrow objectives of NAFTA have been achieved, the broader visionfor North America as a means to address Mexico’s development challenges has vanished.3
|
Studer, 12 Isabel, Founding Director, Center for Dialogue and Analysis on North America, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico City Campus, 12/4, University of Miami, https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Task_Force_Papers/Studer-ModernMexicoTFPaper.pdf, “2012: A New Mexican Vision for North American Integration” | ADM
|
a North American vision as a development strategy has been missing since NAFTA Mexico had enormous political hurdles to articulate a vision for North America that could tap into the opportunities arising from the high levels of economic and social integration Mexico agreed to link its economic future to the United States and to pursue a dramatic process of economic liberalization This optimistic picture of North American integration assumed NAFTA would lead to a repeat of the European success story The transition toward democracy and the decade of political turmoil in Mexico that followed the implementation of NAFTA political polarization in Mexico has stalled additional reforms Slow rates of economic growth high levels of poverty and inequality, as well as increasing regional disparities have been cited as evidence that NAFTA has failed the broader visionfor North America as a means to address Mexico’s development challenges has vanished
|
NAFTA’s failure proves promised integration can’t overcome structural barriers – aff ev is overly optimistic
| 2,408 | 108 | 952 | 366 | 15 | 147 | 0.040984 | 0.401639 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,720 |
One has to do with migration, which is often seen by NAFTA’s critics as the clearest proof of the failure of free trade as a model of development—although, paradoxically, migration also represents the profound linkages that exist between the Mexican and American societies and labor markets. Only in North America has the dynamic between trade and migration become so central to address the asymmetrical nature of integration plans. The NAFTA promise for Mexico’s development, however, presented trade and migration as mutually exclusive policy options. Historically, migration has been a key issue in the policy agenda of North American countries, but in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became particularly contentious in the U.S.-Mexico context, as the number of Mexicans migrating to the United States, mostly through illegal channels, soared. While NAFTA generated the expectation that migration, particularly undocumented migration, would subside, wage differentials and economic asymmetries between Mexico and its two trade partners persisted.4 Mexican immigration to the United States did not stop, but rather increased substantially. The sheer volume of Mexicans migrating to the United States in the 1990s was such that many have argued that the agreement may have even contributed to increase the number of Mexicans migrating to the United States, including, for instance, the Mexican farmers who were displaced by the import of cheap U.S. corn into Mexico. By the late 1990s, net migration of Mexicans to the United States, of both legal and illegal immigration, continued to grow and exceeded an average of half a million people per year, which compared with an average of 370,000 per year in the early 1990s. But NAFTA could not possibly stop migration, particularly given the rapid growth of the U.S. economy, which has always been a powerful attraction for migrants. Between 1990 and 2010, immigration accounted for one-third of U.S. population growth.5The lack of immigration policies addressing U.S. labor-market needs more adequately, particularly for low-skilled workers in a period of high economic growth resulted in a significant increase in the number of unauthorized immigrants. Their numbers peaked at 11.8 million in 2007 and then dropped to less than 11 million by 2010. Due to Mexico’s geographic location and the huge asymmetries that continued to exist with its northern neighbor, a large percentage of these undocumented immigrants were of Mexican origin. While the sheer size of undocumented migration of Mexicans to the United States undermined the legitimacy of NAFTA as a model of development, the political hurdles in the United States to embracing a North American vision are more structural. The deep reluctance in the U.S. Congress to cede any “sovereignty” to international or supranational organizations is historical. This factor works against the North American integration project and helps explain why the Mexican proposal of replicating the European model of economic integration has never been appealing to the United States.6These obstacles are reflected in the historical lack of White House leadership regarding the North American integration project. President Bill Clinton faced strong political opposition to NAFTA, particularly from environmental and labor groups, and also from other sectors of the U.S. society that vehemently opposed globalization. During the 1991-1993 NAFTA negotiations, even moderate U.S. groups demanded a model of economic integration that was based on “fair” rather than “free” trade, and favored the inclusion of a Social Charter for North America. Acceptance of this proposal, however, would have killed NAFTA, as the inclusion of social and environmental issues was unacceptable to the agreement’s strongest supporters, who were essentially orthodox free traders
|
Studer, 12 Isabel, Founding Director, Center for Dialogue and Analysis on North America, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico City Campus, 12/4, University of Miami, https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Task_Force_Papers/Studer-ModernMexicoTFPaper.pdf, “2012: A New Mexican Vision for North American Integration” | ADM
|
migration is often seen as the clearest proof of the failure of free trade as a model of development Only in North America has the dynamic between trade and migration become so central to address the asymmetrical nature of integration plans NAFTA presented trade and migration as mutually exclusive migration has been a key issue in the policy agenda of North American countries Mexican immigration did not stop but rather increased substantially The sheer volume was such that many have argued that the agreement may have even contributed to increase the number of Mexicans migrating to the United States NAFTA could not possibly stop migration Due to Mexico’s geographic location a large percentage of undocumented immigrants were of Mexican origin undocumented migration undermined the legitimacy of NAFTA
|
Undocumented migration undermines NAFTA credibility and hinders the success of integration
| 3,848 | 90 | 808 | 582 | 11 | 127 | 0.0189 | 0.218213 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,721 |
While the sheer size of undocumented migration of Mexicans to the United States undermined the legitimacy of NAFTA as a model of development, the political hurdles in the United States to embracing a North American vision are more structural. The deep reluctance in the U.S. Congress to cede any “sovereignty” to international or supranational organizations is historical. This factor works against the North American integration project and helps explain why the Mexican proposal of replicating the European model of economic integration has never been appealing to the United States.6These obstacles are reflected in the historical lack of White House leadership regarding the North American integration project. President Bill Clinton faced strong political opposition to NAFTA, particularly from environmental and labor groups, and also from other sectors of the U.S. society that vehemently opposed globalization. During the 1991-1993 NAFTA negotiations, even moderate U.S. groups demanded a model of economic integration that was based on “fair” rather than “free” trade, and favored the inclusion of a Social Charter for North America. Acceptance of this proposal, however, would have killed NAFTA, as the inclusion of social and environmental issues was unacceptable to the agreement’s strongest supporters, who were essentially orthodox free traders. Although President Clinton had not negotiated NAFTA and had expressed outright opposition to the agreement during his electoral campaign, he got NAFTA ratified in the U.S. Congress. His achievement came at the expense of keeping the North American integration project alive. Proponents of NAFTA were unhappy with the side agreements on labor and the environment, which were subsequently added by the agreement’s detractors as a necessary condition for their support. The detractors, however, were also dissatisfied, claiming that the parallel agreements were too weak to ensure the protection of U.S. environmental and labor standards. Thus, while for many analysts the attacks of September 11, 2001, ended the political viability of North America as a vision for the region, the fact is that the domestic opposition in the United States to the North American project, from both the political left and right, has always been significant.
|
Studer, 12 Isabel, Founding Director, Center for Dialogue and Analysis on North America, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico City Campus, 12/4, University of Miami, https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Task_Force_Papers/Studer-ModernMexicoTFPaper.pdf, “2012: A New Mexican Vision for North American Integration” | ADM
|
the political hurdles in the United States to embracing a North American vision are more structural The deep reluctance in Congress to cede sovereignty to international or supranational organizations is historical This factor works against the North American integration project and helps explain why the Mexican proposal of replicating the European model of economic integration has never been appealing Clinton faced strong political opposition to NAFTA U.S. groups demanded a model of economic integration that was based on “fair” trade Acceptance would have killed NAFTA Proponents of NAFTA were unhappy detractors were also dissatisfied the attacks of September 11 ended the political viability of North America as a vision for the region domestic opposition in the United States to the North American project, from both the political left and right,
|
Political hurdles prevent integration and undermine NAFTA’s credibility
| 2,297 | 71 | 855 | 344 | 8 | 130 | 0.023256 | 0.377907 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,722 |
One of the main arguments in favor of NAFTA at the time it was being proposed by policymakers was that the agreement would improve economic conditions in Mexico and narrow the income disparity between Mexico and the United States and Canada. Studies that have addressed the issue of economic convergence71 have noted that economic convergence in North America has failed to materialize. One study states that NAFTA failed to fulfill the promise of closing the Mexico-U.S. development gap and that this was partially due to the lack of deeper forms of regional integration or cooperation between Mexico and the United States.72 The study contends that domestic policies in both countries, along with underlying geographic and demographic realities, contribute to the continuing disparities in income. The authors argue that neither Mexico nor the United States adopted complementary policies after NAFTA that could have promoted a more successful regional integration effort. These policies could include education, industrial policies, and more investment in border and transportation infrastructure. The authors also note that other developments, such as increased security along the U.S.-Mexico border after the September 11 terrorist attacks, have made it much more difficult for the movement of goods and services across the border and for improving regional integration. They argue that the two countries could cooperate on policies that foster convergence and economic development in Mexico instead of increasing security and “building walls.”73A World Bank study states that NAFTA brought economic and social benefits to the Mexican economy, but that it is not enough to help narrow the disparities in economic conditions between Mexico and the United States.74 It contends that Mexico needs to invest more in education, innovation and infrastructure, and in the quality of national institutions. The study also states that income convergence between a Latin American country and the United States is limited by the wide differences in the quality of domestic institutions, in the innovation dynamics of domestic firms, and in the skills of the labor force. While NAFTA had a positive effect on wages and employment in some Mexican states, the wage differential within the country increased as a result of trade liberalization.75 Another study also notes that the ability of Mexico to improve economic conditions depends on its capacity to improve its national institutions, adding that Mexican institutions did not improve significantly more than those of other Latin American countries since NAFTA went into effect.76
|
Villareal and Fergusson, 13 M. Angeles, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, and Ian F., Specialist in International Trade and Finance, Congressional Research Service, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf, “NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects ,” ADM
|
economic convergence in North America has failed to materialize NAFTA failed to fulfill the promise of closing the development gap due to the lack of deeper integration between Mexico and the United States domestic policies contribute to the continuing disparities neither Mexico nor the United States adopted complementary policies These policies include education, industrial policies and transportation infrastructure other developments have made it much more difficult for improving regional integration NAFTA is not enough to help narrow the disparities in economic conditions Mexico needs to invest more in education, innovation and infrastructure and national institutions income convergence is limited by differences in the quality of domestic institutions innovation dynamics and skills of the labor force the wage differential within the country increased as a result of trade liberalization the ability of Mexico to improve economic conditions depends on its capacity to improve its national institutions
|
NAFTA credibility alone can’t solve – more investment by both countries is necessary
| 2,626 | 84 | 1,015 | 399 | 13 | 145 | 0.032581 | 0.363409 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,723 |
While bilateral initiatives have dominated North American issues over the last couple of years, the trilateral relationship has suffered. With a series of high-level meetings, the U.S., Canada and Mexico are taking steps to boost the NAFTA partnership. First, the defense ministers met to discuss shared continental security threats. This was followed by a leaders summit which pledged to deepen trade, regulatory, energy and security cooperation. The recent meetings have caused some to once again take notice of the incremental efforts to merge all three countries into a North American Union. In what was hailed as an historic event, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay, Mexican Secretary of National Defense Guillermo Galvan, and Mexican Secretary of the Navy Mariano Mendoza recently held the Inaugural Meeting of North American Defense Ministers. As part of a framework they agreed to, “ Develop a joint trilateral defense threat assessment for North America to deepen our common understanding of the threats and challenges we face. Explore ways to improve our support to the efforts of civilian public security agencies in countering illicit activities in our respective countries and the hemisphere, such as narcotics trafficking. Explore how we can collaborate to increase the speed and efficiency with which our armed forces support civilian-led responses to disasters. Continue to work together to strengthen hemispheric defense forums.” The ministers also committed to enhancing cooperation in the fight against transnational criminal organizations. The trilateral defense meeting is part of the ongoing efforts to establish a fully integrated North American security perimeter. On April 2, President Barack Obama hosted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon for the sixth North American Leaders Summit. In a joint statement they reaffirmed their, “commitment to further develop our thriving political and economic partnership with a consistent and strategic long-term vision.” The leaders acknowledged that, “continued North American competitiveness requires secure supply chains and efficient borders. We remain committed to achieving this through co-operative approaches.” With respect to regulatory initiatives, they agreed to move forward trilaterally in areas such as “vehicle emission standards, railroad safety, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Workplace Chemicals, and aligning principles of our regulatory approaches to nanomaterials.” They also announced the creation of the North American Plan for Animal and Pandemic Influenza. Following the leaders summit, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk engaged in discussions with Canadian Trade Minister Ed Fast and Mexico’s Secretary of the Economy Bruno Ferrari, as part of the NAFTA Commission Meeting. In their joint communique, the leaders recognized, “the growing regional and federal cooperation in the area of continental energy, including electricity generation and interconnection and welcome increasing North American energy trade.” They emphasized the need to deepen, “cooperation to enhance our collective energy security, including the safe and efficient exploration and exploitation of resources.” There was no mention of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project which would carry oil from western Canada to the Texas gulf coast. President Obama has blocked the plan pending further environmental review. While speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center following the leaders summit, Prime Minister Harper made it clear that even if the pipeline is approved, Canadian oil will be heading for Asian markets. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been pushing Mexico to further open up its oil sector to private investment. In February, they signed an agreement regarding, “the development of oil and gas reservoirs that cross the international maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mexico.” The leaders joint statement also noted that, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) provides an opportunity to further deepen our trade relationship and create jobs. The United States welcomes Canada’s and Mexico’s interest in joining the TPP.” During a press conference with his NAFTA counterparts, Obama confirmed that, “Consultations with our TPP partners are now underway on how new members can meet the high standards of this trade agreement, which could be a real model for the world.” The U.S. is spearheading TPP negotiations which also include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Japan has also expressed interest in being part of the TPP process. The door is also open for other countries to join which is why many consider it to be a building block for an Asia-Pacific free trade zone. Robert Pastor who has been a leading advocate for deeper North American integration described the TPP as a flawed strategy. He explained Canada and Mexico’s decision to join, “as a defensive measure to ensure that they protect what they gained from NAFTA.” Pastor warned how, “the TPP will divert scarce political capital and attention from North America.” In contrast, the Council of the Americas are of the opinion that it would boost the integrated North American economy. They view the TPP as a “promising vehicle to support the updating of our bilateral and trilateral trading relationships within North America to the high standards of twenty-first century free-trade agreements.” While on a visit to the U.S. in March, Canadian Trade Minister Ed Fast proclaimed that, “As neighbours and friends, we can and should build the TPP together. As like-minded allies, we can ensure that high standards are included in the TPP on such issues as investment, regulatory cooperation, state-owned enterprises and labour provisions.” If Canada and Mexico are accepted into the TPP fold, it could be used to renegotiate and expand NAFTA. The U.S., Canada and Mexico have also agreed to launch a consolidated Central America Integration System-North America Security Dialogue to deepen regional coordination and cooperation. This includes working closer together in the fight against transnational organized crime, arms trafficking and money laundering. During the leaders joint news conference, President Obama praised Mexico’s courage in standing up to the drug cartels, and added, “today each of us reaffirmed our commitment to meeting this challenge together — because that’s the only way that we’re going to succeed.” President Calderon went on to say, “The security of North America is absolutely tied to each of its member states.” The Merida Initiative has expanded the U.S.-Mexico security partnership. It has provided military equipment, training, infrastructure development, along with border security and information technology enhancement. At the 2009 North American Leaders Summit, Prime Minister Harper announced Canadian support for Mexico’s fight against drug trafficking and transnational organized crime.
|
1ac Gabriel, 12 Dana, activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues, Center for Research on Globalization, 4/10, http://www.globalresearch.ca/militarization-and-the-trilateral-north-american-police-state-nafta-partners-take-steps-to-boost-trilateral-relationship/30237, “MILITARIZATION AND THE TRILATERAL NORTH AMERICAN POLICE STATE: NAFTA Partners Take Steps to “Boost Trilateral Relationship” | ADM
|
With a series of high-level meetings the U.S., Canada and Mexico are taking steps to boost the NAFTA partnership ministers met to discuss security threats This was followed by a summit which pledged to deepen trade, regulatory, energy and security cooperation recent meetings caused some to take notice of efforts to merge all three countries they agreed to Develop a joint trilateral defense threat assessment for North America Explore how we can collaborate to increase the speed and efficiency with which our armed forces support civilian-led responses to disasters Obama hosted Harper and Calderon they reaffirmed their, “commitment to further develop our thriving political and economic partnership they agreed to move forward trilaterally in vehicle emission standards, railroad safety, Classification of Chemicals, and regulatory approaches to nanomaterials They also announced the creation of the North American Plan for Animal and Pandemic Influenza leaders recognized the growing regional and federal cooperation in energy The TPP provides an opportunity to further deepen our trade relationship Consultations are now underway If Canada and Mexico are accepted into the TPP fold, it could be used to renegotiate and expand NAFTA U.S., Canada and Mexico have also agreed to launch a consolidated Central America Integration Dialogue to deepen regional coordination and cooperation The Merida Initiative has expanded
|
A host of continental issues are currently being resolved trilaterally – solves the internal link to disaster relief
| 7,031 | 116 | 1,424 | 1,050 | 18 | 212 | 0.017143 | 0.201905 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,724 |
In May 2003, the Congressional Budget Office attempted a full-scale examination of NAFTA's economic consequences to date, taking care to note the challenges inherent in any effort to assign direct causation to one specific trade agreement. The report came to three main conclusions: U.S. trade with Mexico was growing before NAFTA's implementation, and would likely have continued to grow with or without the deal on a scale that "dwarfs the effects" of NAFTA itself; The direct effect of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexico trade is fairly small, and thus the direct impact on the U.S. labor market is also small; and Overall, the NAFTA deal has expanded U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) "very slightly," and has had a similar effect-both positive and small-on the Canadian and Mexican economies.
|
Teslik, 09 Lee Hudson, consultant at McKinsey & Company.He was previously a speechwriter for Queen Rania of Jordan. He has also worked as senior editor and commodities analyst at Roubini Global Economics and as associate editor of economics for the Council on Foreign Relations. His writings have been published in The New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, Newsweek, and Time, and he has written for The Economist, Council on Foreign Relations, 7/7, http://www.cfr.org/world/naftas-economic-impact/p15790#p3, “NAFTA's Economic Impact” | ADM
|
the Congressional Budget Office attempted a full-scale examination of NAFTA's economic consequences The report came to three main conclusions trade with Mexico was growing before NAFTA's implementation, and would have continued to grow with or without the deal on a scale that "dwarfs the effects" of NAFTA itself The direct effect of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexico trade is fairly small the direct impact on the U.S. labor market is also small NAFTA deal expanded GDP very slightly and has had a similar effect on the Canadian and Mexican economies
|
NAFTA doesn’t significantly increase North American trade – trends go neg
| 783 | 73 | 539 | 126 | 11 | 88 | 0.087302 | 0.698413 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,725 |
Analysts cite economic growth in Mexico since NAFTA was implemented. Attributing this growth directly to the deal is a fuzzy process, however, and some experts say Mexican growth has underperformed expectations. Since 1994, Mexico's GDP has increased at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent, below the average growth rates of 3.3 percent and 3.6 percent in the United States and Canada, respectively. Mexican exports to the United States have quadrupled since NAFTA's implementation, from $60 billion to $280 billion per year. American exports to Mexico have also increased sharply, more than tripling as Mexico's economy has grown. In addition, experts say trade liberalization between Mexico and the United States has brought broad positive consequences for regular Mexicans, not just Mexican business interests. For instance, the deal has led to a dramatic reduction in prices for Mexican consumers. GEA, a Mexico City-based economic consulting firm, estimates that the cost of basic household goods in Mexico has halved since NAFTA's implementation. But some analysts argue the deal hasn't benefited Mexico much. Alejandro Portes, a Princeton sociology professor, notes stagnation in the country's labor market: "Economic growth has been anemic in Mexico, averaging less than 3.5 percent per year or less than 2 percent on a per capita basis since 2000," Portes writes. "Unemployment is higher than what it was when the treaty was signed; and half of the labor force must eke out a living in invented jobs in the informal economy, a figure ten percent higher than in the pre-NAFTA years." Some critics single out Mexico's farm industry, saying NAFTA has crippled Mexican farming prospects by opening competition to the heavily-subsidized U.S. farm industry. Economists dispute this assessment as flatly incorrect. The Economist notes that despite increased competition, Mexican farm exports to the United States have in fact tripled since NAFTA's implementation, in part because of reduced tariffs on maize. Yet even some strongly pro-NAFTA experts say they are surprised the deal hasn't done more to boost Mexico's economy. Schott and Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute say Mexican growth rates over the past decade and a half have been "a disappointment." They attribute Mexican economic stagnation not to NAFTA, however, but rather to a lack of liberalization in sectors not covered by NAFTA. "Sectors that were shielded from NAFTA-particularly energy in Mexico-have also been shielded from its positive effects."
|
Teslik, 09 Lee Hudson, consultant at McKinsey & Company.He was previously a speechwriter for Queen Rania of Jordan. He has also worked as senior editor and commodities analyst at Roubini Global Economics and as associate editor of economics for the Council on Foreign Relations. His writings have been published in The New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, Newsweek, and Time, and he has written for The Economist, Council on Foreign Relations, 7/7, http://www.cfr.org/world/naftas-economic-impact/p15790#p3, “NAFTA's Economic Impact” | ADM
|
Analysts cite economic growth in Mexico since NAFTA was implemented Attributing this to the deal is a fuzzy process Mexican growth has underperformed expectations GDP has increased at an annual rate of 2.7 percent below the average growth rates of the United States and Canada the deal hasn't benefited Mexico much Portes notes stagnation in the country's labor market Economic growth has been anemic in Mexico Unemployment is higher NAFTA has crippled Mexican farming prospects by opening competition to the heavily-subsidized U.S. farm industry even strongly pro-NAFTA experts say the deal hasn't done more to boost Mexico's economy Mexican growth rates have been "a disappointment
|
NAFTA hasn’t helped Mexico – growth has slowed since NAFTA
| 2,521 | 58 | 683 | 389 | 10 | 105 | 0.025707 | 0.269923 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,726 |
While the disaster response system may be adequate in small-scale disasters when a handful of agencies must coordinate, as I embarked on this research project I became astonished by our nation’s striking lack of preparedness. Disasters often strike with limited or no warning, and by definition they result in large-scale death, destruction, and mass hysteria. They often have long-lasting and large-scale economic, political, and psychological effects. While individual disasters may not be predictable, we can be assured that another disaster will occur in the not too distant future. It may come in the form of a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, or other natural disaster; or, it may be the result of an intentional human act such as war, terrorism, bioterrorism, or some yet unforeseen destructive act. The American public and political officials have a choice. They can continue, however illogical, to live in denial that another destructive event is forthcoming, or they can learn from the past and finally create a political and bureaucratic system capable of curtailing destructive effects. Despite having responded to thousands of natural disasters and numerous terrorist attacks, at present the United States government at the federal, state, and local levels is exceedingly unprepared to handle the immediate aftereffects of disasters. The federal government has created numerous large bureaucracies and congressional panels as well as generated hundreds of official reports each of which purports to detail appropriate disaster response guidelines. Nonetheless, the improvements since the first disaster response plan was implemented during World War I are not palpable. During the most recent major Hurricanes – Katrina and Rita – despite having significant advanced notice of the impending natural disaster as well as years of investigative reports warning about the fragility of the New Orleans levy system, the disaster response system failed the citizens of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. That the system requires repair is not debatable. The questions which remain are how the current system came to be, what our expectations of the system should be, and how we ought to shock the political bureaucracy into action to repair the obviously ailing system. Changes to this point have consistently stemmed from the conviction that failure was a result of poor leadership, poor individual decisions, and inexperience. These “improvements” stemmed from the obvious fact that the system would work better if each participating organization were better equipped, better trained, and more highly funded. However, while these shortcomings contribute to the inefficiencies, the consistent failure of the system under different personal leaderships, points to a systemic cause for the failure. Criticism must look at the overall system and the environment in which it functions to develop a practical, appropriate, and affordable strategic plan. The government must replace its tendency to fund “random acts of preparedness1” with a carefully outlined strategic plan that is sensitive to American political traditions, yet still effective
|
Mener, 07 Andrew, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Political Science, UPenn College of Arts and Sciences; CUREJ - College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, 07, http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=curej, “Disaster Response in the United States of America: An Analysis of the Bureaucratic and Political History of a Failing System” | ADM
|
I became astonished by our nation’s striking lack of preparedness Disasters often strike They often have long-lasting effects another disaster will occur Despite having responded to thousands of natural disasters the United States government at the federal, state, and local levels is exceedingly unprepared to handle disasters The government has created numerous bureaucracies and congressional panels improvements are not palpable despite having advanced notice disaster response system failed improvements stemmed from the obvious fact that the system would work better if each participating organization were better equipped, better trained, and more highly funded the consistent failure of the system points to a systemic cause for the failure Criticism must look at the overall system and the environment
|
Federal disaster relief efforts always fail – improvements are solely nominal and don’t resolve structural issues
| 3,142 | 113 | 810 | 473 | 16 | 117 | 0.033827 | 0.247357 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,727 |
(Reuters) - The automotive industry's growing love affair with Mexico was celebrated here on Saturday as Audi executives laid the foundation stone for its first assembly plant in the Americas. Volkswagen AG's (VOWG_p.DE) premium brand is joining a parade of automakers who have announced plans to build cars in a country that is seen as a doorway not only to the rest of North and South America but to the world. Audi officials said the $1.3 billion plant will open in three years and eventually be the German brand's only source globally for its Q5 SUVs after it opens in mid-2016. "Mexico was chosen very deliberately," Audi Chairman Rupert Stadler told more than 500 industry and government officials outside the town of San Jose Chiapa in central Mexico. "It is situated between North and South America, making it a linchpin between the two regions." He added that Mexico was an "ideal export base." With numerous free trade agreements, a cheap, well-educated labor force, and proximity to the lucrative U.S. auto market, combined with growing demand in South America, automakers have been lining up for two years to set up shop in a country that could eventually overtake Brazil as Latin America's biggest economy. Audi's ceremony came two days after Japanese automaker Honda Motor Co (7267.T) said it would build a $470 million transmission plant in the central state of Guanajuato, near an $800 million assembly plant that is expected to begin operations in February 2014. Other automakers who have announced plans to open plants in Mexico include Mazda Motor Co (7261.T) and Nissan Motor Co(7201.T), while companies already there - General Motors Co (GM.N) and Ford Motor Co (F.N) - continue to pump hundreds of millions into their plants. The new plants also are attracting supplier factories and more could be on the way as Nissan's Infiniti brand, BMW (BMWG.DE) and Hyundai (005380.KS) are weighing the possibility of building plants in North America. When Nissan said in January 2012 that it would build a $2 billion plant in the central state of Aguascalientes to open in late 2013, CEO Carlos Ghosn called Mexico, where it has now two plants and is the market leader in sales, production and exports, a "key engine" to Nissan's growth in the Americas. The Japanese automaker exports to 115 countries from Mexico. Last year, Mexico attracted $3.7 billion in announced investments by automakers alone, matching the U.S. total, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. IHS Automotive estimated that investments by automakers in Mexico over the next few years could total $3 billion annually. From 2000 to 2013, vehicle production in Mexico has risen almost 3 percent annually, compared with declines in the United States and Canada of 1.3 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively, according to Boston Consulting Group. That trend will hold through 2018 as Mexico's production is forecast to grow 5 percent annually, compared with 3 percent growth in the United States and a 4 percent decline in Canada. Mexico is the eighth largest producer of vehicles in the world. Audi executives touted Mexico's good infrastructure, competitive cost structures and existing free-trade agreements in picking the site for the new plant, which will cover an area the size of 400 soccer fields. They called the Mexican plant a "dream moment." VW has a VW plant in nearby Puebla City and an engine plant in Silao. VW has said it wants to boost sales in the United States, the world's No. 2 auto market, to 1 million vehicles by 2018, including 200,000 from Audi. It is the same time frame in which VW has pledged to become the world's largest automaker. Last year, VW's U.S. sales totaled more than 577,000, including 139,310 for Audi. The new plant in Mexico is also part of the automaker's plan for Audi to reach annual global sales of more than 2 million by 2020 with the aim of snatching the luxury crown from BMW globally as well as challenging its luxury rival and Daimler's (DAIGn.DE) Mercedes-Benz in the U.S. market. BMW and Mercedes have had production footprints in North America since the 1990s and each sell about twice as many cars in the United States as Audi. Access to the lucrative U.S. market isn't the only draw though as Mexico has 12 free trade agreements with 44 countries, while the United States' 14 trade deals cover only 20 countries. Xavier Mosquet, leader of Boston Consulting Group's automotive practice, said Mexico was the "better choice" over the United States for exporting to the rest of Latin America. Also in Mexico's favor are the rising labor costs in China, lower transportation costs and even Mexico's own growing economy, industry officials and analysts said. In 2010, Mexico's total compensation per worker was $3.94 an hour, said Kristin Dziczek, director of labor and industry at the Center for Automotive Research, citing Bureau of Labor Statistics data. That compared with $3.45 in China, $34.59 in the United States and $52.60 in Germany. And the Mexican work force is increasingly well educated. Audi officials say 2,500 applicants, many with degrees, have expressed interest in the 3,800 jobs they will have at the San Jose Chiapa plant and they haven't even advertised the jobs yet. Nomura said last August that Mexico could overtake Brazil as Latin America's top economy as early as 2022. Mexico's annual economic growth is projected to increase 4.5 percent in that period, up from 2.1 percent annual growth from 2002 to 2010. Mexico also serves as a natural hedge for many foreign automakers against stronger currencies at home or disasters like the tsunami in 2011 that hurt the Japanese automakers, IHS analyst Guido Vildozo said. "It's probably one of the reasons why you're hearing that some of the other automakers are also kicking the tires," he said.
|
Klayman 5/4 (Ben, Reuters, May 4, 2013, “Auto industry love for Mexico grows with new Audi plant,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/04/us-audi-mexico-idUSBRE9430D220130504, alp)
|
The automotive industry's growing love affair with Mexico was celebrated "Mexico was chosen deliberately," Audi Chairman Stadler told government officials "It is situated between North and South America, making it a linchpin between the two regions." Mexico was an "ideal export base." With numerous free trade agreements, a cheap, well-educated labor force, and proximity to the lucrative U.S. auto market, combined with growing demand in South America Nissan said it would build a $2 billion plant in the central state of Aguascalientes vehicle production in Mexico has risen 3 percent annually, compared with declines in the U S and Canada of 1.3 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively, according to B C G That trend will hold through 2018 as Mexico's production is forecast to grow 5 percent annually, compared with 3 percent growth in the U S and a 4 percent decline in Canada. Mexico is the eighth largest producer of vehicles in the world. Audi executives touted Mexico's good infrastructure, competitive cost structures and existing free-trade agreements Access to the lucrative U.S. market isn't the only draw though as Mexico has 12 free trade agreements with 44 countries, while the United States' 14 trade deals cover only 20 countries. Mosquet, leader of B C G automotive practice, said Mexico was the "better choice" over the U S for exporting to the rest of Latin America. Also in Mexico's favor are the rising labor costs in China, lower transportation costs and even Mexico's own growing economy the Mexican work force is increasingly well educated. Mexico serves as a natural hedge for many foreign automakers against stronger currencies at home or disasters like the tsunami in 2011 that hurt Japanese automakers
|
Structural reasons Mexican production sharing is sustainable and inevitable
| 5,831 | 76 | 1,730 | 970 | 9 | 280 | 0.009278 | 0.28866 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,728 |
DETROIT- The U.S. auto industry remained resilient through the first half of 2013. Automakers, including the Detroit Three, on Tuesday reported total sales of 1.4 million vehicles in June for the U.S., a 9 percent increase from a year ago. That brings U.S. vehicle sales for the first six months to more than 7.8 million cars and trucks, and more than halfway to what was expected to be a 15.5-million vehicle market, according to Autodata Corp. In June, new vehicles sold at an annualized rate of 15.96 million -- the fastest monthly pace since December 2007, according to Edmunds.com. It hasn't hit 16 million since November 2007. Industry experts and analysts say record-low interest rates, pent-up demand and economic signs of a recovery continue to lead consumers into dealerships with no signs of slowing down. “It was a great finish to the first half of the year,” said TrueCar.com senior analyst Jesse Toprak. “It certainly exceeded our expectations, and that was mostly thanks to the truck segment coming back stronger than expected.” Autodata Corp. reports light truck sales, including full-size pickups, topped 3.8 million through the first six months of 2013, an 11.2 percent increase from a year ago.
|
Wayland 7/3 (Michael, automotive reporter for Michigan Live, July 3, 2013, “US auto industry resilient in 2013; Sales already top 7.8 million vehicles,” http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2013/07/us_auto_industry_resilient_in.html, alp)
|
The U.S. auto industry remained resilient through 2013. Automakers, including the Detroit Three reported total sales a 9 percent increase from a year ago. according to Autodata Corp. new vehicles sold the fastest monthly pace since December 2007, Industry experts and analysts say record-low interest rates, pent-up demand and economic signs of a recovery continue to lead consumers into dealerships with no signs of slowing down. “It was a great finish to the first half of the year,” “It exceeded our expectations thanks to the truck segment coming back strong Autodata Corp. reports an 11.2 percent increase from a year ago.
|
The industry’s also resilient – empirics and 2008 crisis prove
| 1,213 | 62 | 627 | 199 | 10 | 101 | 0.050251 | 0.507538 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,729 |
DETROIT- The U.S. automotive industry continued to prove its newfound resilience in February. The Detroit Three and non-domestic automakers on Friday reported sales of just less than 1.2 million units in the U.S. for last month, a 4 percent increase from February 2012. February sales hit an annualized rate of 15.4 million cars and trucks. Analysts and executives said the industry continues to outpace the economy even with higher Social Security taxes, gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon and the federal government’s “continued saga” of fiscal cliffs and the sequester. “Autos remained really unaffected by a lot of these detractors,” said Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds.com senior analyst. “That’s generally good news.” February marked the fourth-straight month of the seasonally adjusted annual rate, or selling-rate of vehicles topping 15 million and a full-year of 1 million or more new car and truck sales for each month. January 2012 was the last month to not top 1 million in sales. New models, pent-up demand and loosening credit continue to drive sales, according to analysts. Edmunds.com reports the average finance rate for new cars and trucks is about 4.3 percent.
|
Wayland 3/2 (Michael, automotive reporter for Michigan Live, March 2, 2013, “U.S. auto industry remains resilient despite sequester, higher gas prices,” http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2013/03/us_auto_industry_remains_resil.html, alp)
|
The automotive industry continued to prove resilience The Detroit Three and non-domestic automakers reported sales of a 4 percent increase from February 2012. Analysts and executives said the industry continues to outpace the economy even with higher Social Security taxes, gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon and the sequester. “Autos remained really unaffected by a lot of these detractors,” said Caldwell senior analyst. New models, pent-up demand and loosening credit continue to drive sales, according to analysts.
|
Sequestration, higher taxes, and gas prices are alt causes to the aff and prove resiliency
| 1,178 | 90 | 522 | 187 | 15 | 78 | 0.080214 | 0.417112 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,730 |
Others argue we need more manufacturing assembly operations in the U.S. because our national security depends on it. That seems doubtful. U.S. military contractors subcontract all over the world. As long as they diversify their sources so as not to be dependent on one location or country, we’re safe. In the unlikely event that much of the rest of the world where manufacturing is now done suddenly turns on us, we can create the factories and equipment we need. We’ve mobilized for war before, quite successfully. It’s always possible that the U.S. dollar eventually drops so low that global companies find it cheaper to locate more of their assembly operations in the U.S.–but don’t hold your breath. If and when that happens, American consumers will become far poorer than we are today because everything we buy from the rest of the world will be that much costlier. I don’t want to sound like one of those rabid free-market fundamentalists who believes the market always knows best. The market is fallible, as we’ve recently and painfully experienced. And sometimes we need to consider what’s good for our economy and society as a whole regardless of where the market may lead us. But that’s exactly where I depart from those who believe we need a larger manufacturing sector in America. Creating and sustaining it would be very costly to American consumers and taxpayers. I just don’t get how those costs could possibly be justified.
|
Reich 09 (Robert B., former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is Supercapitalism, “Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back,” May 28th, 2009, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/28/robert-reich-manufacturing-business-economy.html //EH)
|
Others argue we need more manufacturing assembly operations in the U.S. because our national security depends on it. That seems doubtful. U.S. military contractors subcontract all over the world. As long as they diversify their sources so as not to be dependent on one location or country, we’re safe. In the unlikely event that much of the rest of the world where manufacturing is We’ve mobilized for war before, quite successfully But that’s exactly where I depart from those who believe we need a larger manufacturing sector in America. Creating and sustaining it would be very costly to American consumers and taxpayers. I just don’t get how those costs could possibly be justified.
|
Manufacturing not key to deterrence
| 1,439 | 35 | 686 | 242 | 5 | 113 | 0.020661 | 0.466942 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,731 |
Labor markets have for the past quarter century been at the center of the globalization disputes under the "off-shoring and out-sourcing" rubric. How many jobs were lost at home to cheap labor abroad? What were conditions for those overseas workers? But the rapidly changing nature of the global economy has changed much, though not all, of that "off-shoring/out-sourcing" debate. Today, cheap labor is only one of many factors leading global companies to choose where to do business in diverse nations across the world. Major economic changes like the internal growth of emerging markets have scrambled debates about the global economy, posed challenges for international business, stimulated contradictory public policies and confused the general public. It was often cheap labor in emerging markets that, more than two decades ago, led companies in developed markets to move company jobs away from the home country either to company owned facilities (off-shoring) or to third parties (out-sourcing) in developing markets. The broad idea was that less expensive manufacturing or inexpensive white collar workers would create goods and services in developing nations that would serve world markets. China, especially, would be the global product-manufacturing center; India, via the web, would be the global service provider. The well known debate ensued between free-trade (more competition, cheaper goods in U.S., growth in developing markets) and fair trade (only wealthy benefit, hollowing out of U.S. middle class, exploitive labor standards overseas). The debate heated up in political years (including 2012), when "outsourcing" became an especially a dirty word. But, in addition to dramatic economic growth in emerging markets, four recent trends have significantly modified this old off-shoring and out-sourcing schematic. First, labor costs for many businesses may no longer be the critical or even primary factor in global location decisions. Wages are rising in many emerging markets due, in part, to increased demand, new labor laws, and greater worker voice. Wages are declining in developed markets like the U.S. where depressed economic conditions for workers have led to lower wage and benefit packages, especially for lower entry level workers, and often through negotiations with organized labor. New technology, such as robotics, and higher productivity have also lowered the price of labor as a percentage of total product or service costs. When labor cost differences are not as dramatic or important, other costs like materials, energy, transportation, currency, capital, government imposed costs (tariffs, regulation) -- which were always important -- may have as great (or greater) impact on the location as cheap workers. Second, companies are retaining but modifying their global supply chains by selectively reversing the long-term trend of outsourcing. They are "making" important parts of the products or services rather than "buying" from third parties, as described recently by U.S. business people and journalists, Companies are recognizing that closely interrelating, even co-locating, research and development, design and marketing, manufacturing and assembly close to the markets served can lead to much faster response to market shifts and to much faster innovation. The old practice of designing at home and then manufacturing abroad can slow the pace of innovation and product change to a crawl. So companies are making complex trade-offs between "making" and "buying" -- and between the need to develop technology at connected global R&D centers and the need to apply it in a variety of local settings in a variety of ways. Similarly, companies which were enamored of outsourcing key service functions like information technology to nations like India are discovering that these, too, are key to fast-paced innovation and should be "made" not "bought" -- bringing them back in-house, with corporate units integrated across the world under global/local management. The "de-verticalizing" outsourcing process - when a company sent many of its functions between raw materials and the finished product to third parties - is now being partially reversed with "re-verticalization." But, even with changes, global supply chains, even if owned more by the company and less by third parties, will remain critical.
|
Heineman, 3/26 (Ben, The Atlantic, 3/26/13, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-we-can-all-stop-worrying-about-offshoring-and-outsourcing/274388/, "Why We Can All Stop Worrying About Offshoring and Outsourcing," alp)
|
Labor markets have been at the center of the globalization disputes under the "off-shoring rubric. How many jobs were lost at home the rapidly changing nature of the global economy has changed much cheap labor is only one of many factors leading global companies to choose where to do business Major economic changes have scrambled debates about the global economy, posed challenges for international business, stimulated contradictory public policies and confused the public. The broad idea was that less expensive manufacturing or inexpensive white collar workers would create goods and services in developing nations that would serve world markets. China, especially The debate heated up when "outsourcing" became a dirty word. four recent trends have significantly modified this schematic. First, labor costs may no longer be the critical factor in global location decisions. Wages are rising in many emerging markets due to increased demand, new labor laws, and worker voice. robotics, and higher productivity lowered the price of labor Second, companies are modifying global supply chains by selectively reversing outsourcing. They are "making" important parts of the products or services rather than "buying" from third parties The practice of designing at home and manufacturing abroad can slow the pace of innovation companies are making complex trade-offs between "making" and "buying"
|
No impact to off-shoring:
| 4,345 | 25 | 1,395 | 657 | 4 | 210 | 0.006088 | 0.319635 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,732 |
There sure is a lot of talk about China taking jobs away from the United States, and yet for some reason it doesn't concern me as much as others, because I realize that eventually a rebalancing of global trade will occur. The issues of up-and-coming India and China have taken their toll, and currently are a concern, but as wage inflation continues, jobs will migrate to other places. Indeed, our next-door neighbor Mexico will also be on the list along with a revitalized and new North Africa with so many people making only a dollar and change per day. When I hear people badmouthing China for their currency manipulation I laugh because China is in a little bit of economic hot water, and they painted themselves into a corner. They could easily have a complete reset of their economy due to pushing the year-over-year growth at 10%, without regards to the realities at hand. They have some bad loans from municipal vehicles that are outstanding, and now those municipal vehicles are selling bonds to pay off those bad loans and get themselves into a better financial situation. In reality, such tactics are nothing more than a switcheroo on the balance sheet, and hardly take care of the problem. When that house of cards comes crashing down, it will affect the currency, valuation, and therefore, all the problems will take care of themselves on our side of the stick. Not long ago, there was some talk in some of the financial magazines including the Economist, that the United States could expect 3 million jobs to come back to our shores as China's middle class gets going, and as their wage inflation continues to rise at an annual 15 to 20% per year. Surely, some jobs may come back to the United States, or companies here may decide that it is more prudent to build factories in the states, but I just bet that Mexico, certain parts of Latin America, and other countries will be the net gain in all of this and not necessarily the US. Rather than being concerned about what China is doing, perhaps we need to look at our own mirrors and consider some of our own policies. We've over regulated our companies here the United States, and we've given too much power to the unions, the lawyers, and we've just done a terrible job in keeping civility between the rich and poor, and the corporations and the workers - this infighting is commonly referred to as class warfare. Rather than yelling at Wall Street, not that they don't deserve a little critique, we ought to consider what we are best at in the United States, and that is free-market capitalism.
|
Fluser No date (Fluser, SEO Business Directory, no date, last updated 2013, “Re-Shoring, Off-Shoring, or Right-Shoring - Global Trade and Wages in the Balance,” http://fluser.com/articles/re-shoring-off-shoring-or-right-shoring--global-trade-and-wages-in-the-balance-429.php, alp)
|
There is a lot of talk about China taking jobs away from the U S eventually a rebalancing of global trade will occur. The issues of up-and-coming India and China have taken their toll, as wage inflation continues, jobs will migrate to other places. Mexico will be on the list along with a revitalized North Africa China is in economic hot water, and they painted themselves into a corner. They could have a complete reset of their economy due to pushing the year-over-year growth at 10%, without regards to the realities at hand. They have bad loans municipal vehicles are selling bonds to pay off those bad loans and get themselves into a better financial situation. When that house of cards comes crashing down, it will affect the currency, valuation, and therefore, all the problems will take care of themselves their wage inflation continues to rise at an annual 20% per year. some jobs may come back to the U S or companies may decide that it is more prudent to build factories in the states We've over regulated companies and given too much power to the unions infighting is referred to as class warfare.
|
2) Proximity – predictive ev that reshoring’s inevitable – unionization and regulation are alt causes
| 2,562 | 101 | 1,110 | 453 | 15 | 195 | 0.033113 | 0.430464 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,733 |
Many in the U.S. Congress and media accuse China of being a leading cause of the downturn in U.S. manufacturing during the recessions of 2002 and 2009, and have proposed legislation designed to mitigate the influences of China’s “unfair” policies on U.S. industry 7. In the first of the decade’s two recessions, U.S. manufacturers’ shipments declined by 7.5 percent during 2000-02 (table 2a) and the economy lost $2.5 million. 4. How does Mexico Compete with China? The following are key factors enabling Mexico to maintain its share of the U.S. market, despite intense competition from China: 1. Lower transportation costs. 2. Less time from manufacture to market. 3. Easier communication and supervision of production. 4. Greater flexibility for changes in production. 5. More transparent government regulations. 6. Better protection of intellectual property. Table 3 and figures 9 and 10 compare the leading U.S. imports from Mexico and China in 2011. Motor vehicles and auto parts accounted for nearly one quarter of U.S. imports from Mexico, but only 4 percent of imports from China. Computer and telecom equipment accounted for over one quarter of U.S. imports from China. Mexico is most competitive relative to China in products with the following characteristics: a. High ratio of weight to value: (1) Motor vehicles (2) Large screen televisions (3) Major household appliances b. Quality (rather than price) intensive: (1) Medical goods (2) Process control instruments (3) Precision metal working c. Are inputs for industries that require just-in-time delivery, customized production, or require frequent design changes—such as auto parts d. Protection in intellectual property is important Felipe Canales of BAS-Tech Group contrasted the competitive advantages of Mexico and China succinctly in a recent interview. Mexico has the advantage for mid-volume customized products such as the “3As”: automotive, appliances, and aerospace. China’s strength is in high volume products, such as the “3Cs”: communications, computers, and consumer goods (Canales, Myers, and Rozental 2012). Several factors are increasing the costs of importing from China: 1. Rising value of the yuan (Schneider 2012). 2. Rising labor costs in the industrialized coastal regions of China. 3. Rising costs of imported inputs used in assembly plants in China. 4. Growth of demand by China’s middle class. 5. Increasing costs to ship finished goods to North America. Some goods are very labor-intensive to manufacture and, as costs increase in China, their production may shift to lower labor-cost countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia.12 For some other products, while production may not shift from China to Mexico, goods made in Mexico are becoming more competitive in the U.S. market as costs in China rise and sourcing may shift to Mexico (Lahart and Orlik 2012). Table 4 identifies 25 product categories for which China supplied over one-half of U.S. imports in 2011. Collectively, in those 25 categories, China accounted for 65 percent of total U.S. imports in 2011 (figure 11). By contrast, imports from Mexico accounted for just 9 percent. When people exclaim, “Everything is made in China!” they are thinking about products in those 25 categories. But what about the other 225 product categories used by industry analysts at the U.S. International Trade Commission? Those 225 categories accounted for 88 percent of total U.S. imports in 2011. Imports from Mexico in those collective categories exceeded imports from China, with imports from Mexico accounting for 12.4 percent of U.S. imports in those categories and imports from China accounting for 12.0 percent (table 5 and figure 12). Contrary to popular perceptions, the bulk of North American manufacturing did not go to China. Although many U.S. manufacturers established production facilities in China to supply the existing and hoped-for market there, and other U.S. companies contracted out manufacturing of labor-intensive articles to low-cost producers in China in order to maintain or expand their market shares in the United States, much of the growth in U.S. imports from China in the last two decades came from a shift of production from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan to China rather than from the United States to China. As demonstrated in tables 2a and 2b and figure 7, U.S. producers’ shipments of manufactured goods grew by 27 percent during 2000-2012. For many U.S. companies, partnerships with assembly plants in Mexico for the supply of intermediate and final goods has helped these companies remain competitive with non-North American suppliers to the U.S. market. NAFTA has played an important role in facilitating these partnerships. The ability of the North American manufacturing industry to remain competitive depends on commitments from all three NAFTA partners to invest in infrastructure, education, and research, facilitate access to markets and credit for small- and medium-sized business, implement reforms that will make it easier to do business while protecting the rights of stakeholders, and enforce intellectual property rights.13
|
Peters, Hearn, and Shaiken 13 (Enrique Dussel, Adrian H., Harley, member of the economic faculty at la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, division of postgraduate studies, AND ARC future fellow, convenor if IR at the University of Sydney China Studies Center, PhD, AND professor of education and geography at Berkeley, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Miami, May 1, 2013, “China and the New Triangular Relationships in the Americas: China and the Future of US-Mexico Relations,” http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=clas_publications, alp)
|
Many in the Congress and media accuse China of being a leading cause of the downturn in manufacturing during the recessions of 2002 and 2009, and have proposed legislation to mitigate the influences of China’s “unfair” policies on U.S. industry U.S. manufacturers’ shipments declined by 7.5 percent during 2000-02 and the economy lost $2.5 million key factors enabl Mexico to maintain its share of the U.S. market, despite intense competition from China: 1. Lower transportation costs. 2. Less time from manufacture to market. 3. Easier communication and supervision of production. 4. Greater flexibility for changes in production. 5. More transparent government regulations. 6. Better protection of intellectual property. Motor vehicles and auto parts account for one quarter of U.S. imports from Mexico, but only 4 percent of imports from China. Mexico is most competitive relative to China in products with the following characteristics: a. High ratio of weight to value: (1) Motor vehicles (2) Large televisions (3) household appliances b. Quality intensive: (1) Medical goods (2) Process control instruments (3) Precision metal working d. Protection in intellectual property is important Mexico has the advantage for mid-volume customized products such as the “3As”: automotive, appliances, and aerospace. China’s strength is in high volume products, such as the “3Cs”: communications, computers, and consumer goods factors are increasing the costs of importing from China: 1. Rising value of the yuan 2. Rising labor costs in the industrialized coastal regions of China. 3. Rising costs of assembly plants in China. 4. Growth of demand by China’s middle class. 5. Increasing costs to ship to North America. while production may not shift from China to Mexico, goods made in Mexico are becoming more competitive in the U.S. market as costs in China rise and sourcing shift to Mexico When people exclaim, “Everything is made in China!” they are thinking about products in 25 categories. what about the other 225 product categories used by industry analysts at the U.S. International Trade Commission? Those accounted for 88 percent of total U.S. imports Imports from Mexico exceeded imports from China the bulk of North American manufacturing did not go to China. the growth in U.S. imports from China came from a shift of production from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan to China rather than from the U S to China. For U.S. companies, partnerships with assembly plants in Mexico helped these companies remain competitive with non-North American suppliers The ability of the North American manufacturing industry to remain competitive depends on commitments from NAFTA partners to invest in infrastructure, education, and research while protecting i p r
|
4) No tradeoff between the manufacturing that goes on in Mexico and what we offshore – structurally different economies – 11 warrants
| 5,109 | 133 | 2,751 | 791 | 22 | 429 | 0.027813 | 0.542351 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,734 |
The rendering of a firm’s geographic organization as a continuous variable permits a useful decomposition of the impact of an economy-wide decrease in offshoring costs on the wages of low-skilled workers. In general, a fall in the cost of separating low-skill tasks induces a productivity effect, a relative-price effect, and a labor-supply effect on low-skill wages. The productivity effect derives from the cost savings that firms enjoy when prospects for offshoring improve. This effect—which is present whenever the difficulty of offshoring varies by task, and task trade is already taking place—works to the benefit of low-skilled labor. A relative-price effect occurs when a fall in offshoring costs alters a country’s terms of trade. The relative price of a good moves opposite to the change in its relative world supply. Such price movements are mirrored by movements in relative cost and have implications for wages that are familiar from traditional trade theories. Finally, the labor-supply effect operates in environments in which factor prices respond to factor supplies at given relative prices. This effect derives from the reabsorption of workers who formerly performed tasks that are now carried out abroad. After developing our decomposition in Section II, we proceed to examine each of the effects in greater detail. Section IIA highlights the productivity effect by focusing on a small economy that produces two goods with two factors. In such an environment the terms of trade are fixed and wages do not respond to factor supplies, which leaves the productivity effect as the only remaining force. We show that improvements in the technology for offshoring low-skill tasks are isomorphic to (low-skilled) labor-augmenting technological progress and that, perhaps surprisingly, the real wage for low-skilled labor must rise. We contrast the effect of offshoring and immigration and argue that the latter will not result in a productivity effect. In Section IIB and IIC, we introduce the relative-price effect and the labor-supply effect by analyzing first a large two-sector economy and then an economy in which the high-wage country specializes in the production of a single good. We show that the productivity effect is small when the range of offshored tasks is small, but it can outweigh the other effects when the volume of task trade is large. In Section III, we extend the model to include the possibility of offshoring tasks that require high-skilled labor. Here we identify another productivity effect, this one favoring high-skill workers. Much has been written recently about offshoring. Part of this literature focuses on a firm’s choice of organizational form.4 Although this is an interesting problem, the models used to address it tend to be complex, incorporating imperfect information and subtle contracting or matching problems, and so the general equilibrium structure has been kept to a bare minimum. Another strand of literature, closer in spirit to this paper, models “fragmentation” of the production process. This has been conceived as the breakdown of technology for producing some good into discrete parts that can be separated in space.5 The effects of such fragmentation hinge critically on the industry in which it occurs and the factor intensities of the fragments. A useful taxonomy has emerged, with a myriad of interesting possibilities, but general principles have been obscure. By treating offshoring as a continuous and ubiquitous phenomenon, we are able to synthesize this literature and lay bare its unifying principles. Another related literature examines globalization in models with tradeable intermediate inputs.6 The distinction between “tasks” and “intermediate inputs” is largely semantic, but our incorporation of heterogeneous trade costs distinguishes our analysis from these earlier papers. The assumption of uniform (or zero) costs of trading intermediate goods has led the authors of these studies to overlook the positive productivity effect. In sum, our paper makes two distinct contributions. First, it provides a simple and tractable model of offshoring that can be used for many purposes. By modeling the production process as a continuum of tasks, we are able to provide a novel decomposition of the effects of a fall in offshoring costs. Our second contribution is to uncover the productivity effect and to show that this effect is analogous to factor-augmenting technological change.7 We characterize this effect fully and show that it typically grows with the volume of offshoring.
|
Grossman 08 [Gene M. Grossman, Professor at the Department of Economics, Princeton University, American Economic Review, 2008, "Trading Tasks: A Simple Theory of Offshoring", pg. online @ www.princeton.edu/~~erossi/TT.pdf, alp]
|
a fall in the cost of separating low-skill tasks induces a productivity effect, a relative-price effect, and a labor-supply effect on wages. The relative price of a good moves opposite to the change in its relative world supply. Such price movements are mirrored by movements in relative cost and have implications for wages improvements in the technology for offshoring low-skill tasks are isomorphic to (low-skilled) labor-augmenting technological progress and that the real wage for low-skilled labor must rise. the productivity effect is small when the range of offshored tasks is small, but it can outweigh the other effects when the volume of task trade is large. we identify another productivity effect, this one favoring high-skill workers. Although this is an interesting problem, the models used to address it tend to be complex, incorporating imperfect information Another strand of literature models “fragmentation” of the production process. The effects of fragmentation hinge critically on the industry in which it occurs and the factor intensities of the fragments. By treating offshoring as a continuous and ubiquitous phenomenon, we are able to synthesize this literature The assumption of uniform (or zero) costs of trading intermediate goods has led the authors of these studies to overlook the positive productivity effect. our paper makes two distinct contributions. First, it provides a simple and tractable model of offshoring that can be used for many purposes. Our second contribution is to uncover the productivity effect and to show that this effect is analogous to factor-augmenting technological change.
|
b) Labor and manufacturing
| 4,561 | 26 | 1,632 | 704 | 4 | 249 | 0.005682 | 0.353693 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,735 |
The auto industry is about to go on a hiring spree as car makers and parts suppliers race to find engineers, technicians and factory workers to build the next generation of vehicles.¶ The new employees will be part of a larger, busier workforce. From coast to coast, the industry is in top gear. Factories are operating at about 95% of capacity, and many are already running three shifts. As a result, some auto and parts companies are doing something they've been reluctant to consider since the recession: Adding floor space and spending millions of dollars on new equipment.¶ "We're really bumping up against the edge," says Michael Robinet, managing director of IHS Automotive, which forecasts auto production. "So it really is brick-and-mortar time."¶ The auto industry's stepped-up hiring will help sustain the nation's job growth and help fuel consumer spending. On Friday, the government said U.S. employers added 175,000 jobs in May, roughly the monthly average for the past year and a sign of the economy's resilience.¶ At 7.6%, U.S. unemployment remains well above the 5% to 6% typical of a healthy economy. Growth is still modest, in part because of higher taxes and government spending cuts that kicked in this year and weak overseas economies. But the housing market is strengthening, and U.S. consumer confidence has reached a five-year high.¶ The auto industry's outlook is bright. Vehicle sales for 2013 could reach 15.5 million, the highest in six years. To meet that demand, automakers must find more people. Hundreds of companies that make parts for automakers have to hire, too, just to keep up.¶ "As volume goes up, we will really need to add heads," says Mel Stephens, a spokesman for Lear Corp., which makes automotive seats.¶ From January through May, automakers and parts companies hired 8,000 workers, a relatively slow rate. But the pace is picking up. The Center for Automotive Research expects the industry to add 35,000 over the full year.¶ The hiring plans are widespread. Chrysler Group LLC, Honda Motor Co., General Motors Co., Mercedes-Benz and Ford Motor Co. plan to add more than 13,000 people this year.¶ Large parts companies such as Lear, BorgWarner Inc. and TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. are hiring at factories and research centers. Smaller suppliers are adding jobs as well.¶ The auto business has helped keep the economy afloat while Americans wait for the rest of the business world to start hiring. Since 2009, 1 in every 4 manufacturing jobs added in the U.S. came in the auto industry, says Daniel Meckstroth, chief economist for the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, a manufacturing trade group. The auto industry is just under 7% of U.S. manufacturing jobs.¶ Car companies and parts makers created 167,500 jobs from the end of the recession in June 2009 through May. At the same time, U.S. auto sales rose from a low point of 10.4 million in 2009 to an annual rate of more than 15 million so far this year.¶ Chrysler's comeback gave Jeff Caldwell the confidence to leave a human resources consulting firm. Caldwell joined the company in February as an assembly line supervisor at a Jeep Grand Cherokee factory in Detroit. He supervises 100 workers who build the SUV's chassis.¶ "I knew Chrysler was moving in the right direction," says Caldwell, 29, who was born in Detroit and always had an interest in cars. "They kind of reinvented themselves, and I really wanted to get in while I could."¶ Among the hiring planned for this year:¶ — Chrysler will add more than 3,500 workers this year at factories in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan to make transmissions and to build Jeeps and Ram pickups.¶ — Ford expects to hire 2,200 salaried workers in information technology, product development and manufacturing. Plus the company is hiring 1,400 factory workers and recalling another 2,000 laid-off employees, in Michigan and Missouri.¶ — GM is hiring 4,000 engineers and computer professionals at four technical centers in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Texas to develop software and other innovations.¶ — Honda is adding at least 500 jobs this year at factories in Ohio, Indiana and Alabama as it moves more production to North America.¶ — At TRW Automotive, recruiters are looking for 50 engineers in the Detroit area to work on new safety features such as a system that warns drivers when large animals are in their path.¶ Smaller companies also are joining in. Automotive business at Waukesha Metal Products in Sussex, Wis., is so strong that the company is near its capacity to make metal parts for axles, drive shafts and interiors. It's adding $1 million worth of equipment near Milwaukee and building a plant in Mexico to be closer to companies it supplies.¶ Most industry analysts predict that U.S. auto sales will rise gradually during the next five years. Estimates for this year range from 15 million to 15.5 million, compared with 14.5 million a year ago. LMC Automotive, a Troy, Mich., forecasting firm, predicts that sales will gradually increase to 17 million in 2017. That level would be almost equal to the boom years of the late 1990s and early 2000s.¶ Analysts say sales will climb as more people reach driving age. Also, many consumers and businesses still have cars and trucks they bought last decade, if not earlier. The average vehicle on U.S. roads is now a record 11.2 years.¶ The improving economy also helps lift sales. As the housing and construction sectors have come back to life, pickup sales have risen faster than the rest of the market. That has meant a job for Curtis Enkey of suburban Kansas City.¶ Enkey was laid off in April of last year when Ford moved production of the Escape SUV from his factory near Kansas City to Louisville, Ky. He wasn't supposed to come back until Ford started making a commercial van at his plant in July or August. But higher sales of the F-150 pickup, which also is made at his factory, brought an early call to return.¶ Now Enkey is happily working 50-hour weeks. A Ford worker since 1995, he makes about $29 per hour plus benefits.¶ Even with the added hiring, the auto industry isn't the job creator it once was. In 2005, before huge cuts began, more than 1.1 million people made motor vehicles and parts. Today, 798,000 do, according to the latest government statistics.¶ For engineers and many white-collar jobs, auto companies pay salaries that are competitive with the rest of the country. But wages and benefits in the factories have declined.¶ Most new hires will start around $16 per hour, a little over half the pay that longtime workers get. The lower wage was a concession made by the United Auto Workers union to cut costs as the companies ran into financial trouble six years ago. New hires receive health care but get 401K plans instead of pensions, and they don't get health care in retirement like longtime workers do. Still, their wages are better than most other factory workers, who make $13 to $14 per hour in the U.S.¶ The industry would be adding even more workers if not for productivity gains made since the boom years, says Kristin Dziczek, head of the labor and industry group at the Center for Automotive Research.¶ In 2004, the nation had 70 auto-assembly plants. Now there are only 55. But the industry will make 10.7 million vehicles in those plants this year, only 850,000 fewer than in 2004, according to Ward's Automotive.¶ Executives are being forced to rethink hard lines they've drawn against adding space — and costs — since they closed factories during the economic downturn.¶ For instance, General Motors is building a 500,000-square-foot addition to its plant in Wentzville, Mo., to handle expected sales of the next generation of midsize pickup trucks due out next year.¶ But at Ford, executives want to keep costs down by squeezing as many cars and trucks as possible out of existing factory space, mostly by increasing line speeds and breaking up equipment bottlenecks.¶ "We are running a number of our plants pretty full," says Joe Hinrichs, the company's president of the Americas. "But we have more upside if we need it."¶ The recent hiring binge is even causing worker shortages in some areas. Skilled workers such as engineers, machinists, software developers and welders are hard to find, especially in the Detroit area. Entry-level factory jobs, which start around $15 per hour, are filled quickly.
|
Krisher 13 (Tom Krisher, . 6/9/13. "American auto industry on verge of hiring spree". Detroit Free Press. www.freep.com/article/20130609/BUSINESS01/306090123/American-auto-industry-about-to-go-on-hiring-spree)
|
The auto industry is about to go on a hiring spree as car makers and parts suppliers race to find engineers, technicians and factory workers From coast to coast, the industry is in top gear. Factories are operating at about 95% of capacity auto and parts companies are Adding floor space and spending millions of dollars on new equipment. The auto industry will sustain job growth U.S. employers added 175,000 jobs a sign of resilience The auto industry's outlook is bright The hiring plans are widespread Smaller suppliers are adding jobs as well. Chrysler reinvented themselves Chrysler will add more than 3,500 workers this year at factories Ford expects to hire 2,200 salaried workers in information technology and manufacturing GM is hiring 4,000 engineers Smaller companies also are joining in industry analysts predict that U.S. auto sales will rise gradually General Motors is building a 500,000-square-foot addition to its plant in Wentzville, Mo., to handle expected sales of the next generation of midsize pickup trucks due out next year. at Ford, executives increasing line speeds and breaking up equipment bottlenecks. We are running a number of our plants pretty full But we have more upside if we need it."
|
Auto-industry high, sustainable, and resiliant
| 8,383 | 46 | 1,223 | 1,407 | 5 | 199 | 0.003554 | 0.141436 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,736 |
The buzz has been growing to a point of headiness: American giants including Apple, General Electric, Ford, Chrysler, Whirlpool, Lenovo and Caterpillar have all started setting up new plants or reinvesting in old plants in the US. The Boston Consulting Group predicted that up to 5 million manufacturing and related service jobs will be returning by 2020." The White House promised last year that major American companies like Ford will invest $16bn at home and add 12,000 jobs in the US by 2015. The president praised companies like Master Lock for revitalizing America's economy. "Right now we have an excellent opportunity to bring manufacturing back – but we have to seize it," the president said last year.
|
Khan 7/24 (Mubin S., Special Correspondent of New Age, a leading Bangladeshi newspaper, graduate of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, The Guardian, July 24, 2013, “US manufacturing and the troubled promise of reshoring,” http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/24/us-manufacturing-troubled-promise-reshoring, alp)
|
The buzz has been growing American giants Apple G E Ford, Chrysler, Whirlpool, Lenovo and Caterpillar have all started setting up new plants or reinvesting in old plants in the US. The B C G predicted up to 5 million manufacturing and service jobs will be returning by 2020." The White House promised major American companies like Ford will invest $16bn at home and add 12,000 jobs in the US by 2015.
|
Reshoring’s inev – commitments and predictions
| 711 | 46 | 400 | 117 | 6 | 72 | 0.051282 | 0.615385 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,737 |
It’s hardly news when a U.S. firm moves its manufacturing operations abroad to China. But what about when a Chinese company sets up a factory in the United States? That actually happened in January, when Lenovo, a Beijing-based computer maker, opened a new manufacturing line in Whitsett, N.C., to handle assembly of PCs, tablets, workstations and servers. The rationale? The company is expanding into the U.S. market and needs the flexibility to assemble units for speedy delivery across the country, says Jay Parker, Lenovo’s president for North America. But also — and this was crucial — the math added up. While it’s still cheaper to build things in China, those famously low Chinese wages have risen in recent years. “We reached the point where we could offset a portion of those labor costs by saving on logistics,” Parker says. U.S. firms that have long operated abroad are making similar moves: Caterpillar, GE and Ford are among those that have announced that they’re shifting some manufacturing operations back to the United States. And economists are now debating whether these stories are a blip — or whether they signal the beginning of a major renaissances for American manufacturing. It’s easy to be skeptical. So far, the effect on jobs has been modest. Since January 2010, the United States has added 520,000 manufacturing jobs — and of those, just 50,000 have come from overseas firms moving here, according to the Reshoring Initiative. (That includes 115 in the new Lenovo plant.) That’s a decent number, but it pales beside the 6 million factory jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics says vanished between 2000 and 2009. And all those reshoring anecdotes might just be that — isolated anecdotes. In March, Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs pored over the data on U.S. trade and manufacturing and found that the manufacturing gains since 2010 have mainly just been a cyclical bounce-back from the recession and nothing more. “Evidence for a structural renaissance is scant so far,” he wrote. Yet the optimists counter that the logic of a manufacturing comeback remains compelling. Besides the shrinking wage gap between China and the United States, the productivity of the American worker keeps rising. Shipping costs are rising, making outsourcing more costly. And the surge in shale gas drilling gives the United States a wealth of cheap domestic energy to bolster industries such as petrochemicals. All that could combine to make U.S. factories more competitive in the years ahead, not just with Europe and Japan, but with the manufacturing behemoth in China. This shift likely won’t mean the United States will have 19 million manufacturing workers again, the way it did in the 1980s. For one thing, automation is still a powerful force. And the types of jobs that come back will be very different from the ones that vanished. Still, any significant uptick in domestic manufacturing after a decades-long decline could bolster the economy and spur innovation. “I think it’s fair to say this hasn’t all registered in the data just yet,” says Scott Paul, the president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, in response to Hatzius’ points. “But we’re starting to lay the groundwork where we’ll start to see a real effect three to 10 years from now.” So what does that groundwork look like? For many analysts, the narrowing of the wage gap between China and the United States is the most significant factor. China has been getting wealthier, and its factory workers are demanding ever-higher wages. Whereas the gap in labor costs between the two countries was about $17 per hour in 2006, that could shrink to as little as $7 per hour by 2015, says Dan North, an economist with Euler Hermes, a credit insurer that works with manufacturers. “If you’re a U.S. company and the advantage is only $7 per hour, suddenly it may be worth staying home,” North says. “If I stay here, I have lower inventory costs, lower transportation costs. I’m closer to my market, I can have higher-quality production and I can keep my technology.” This notion appears to be catching on. In a February 2012 survey from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), 37 percent of U.S. manufacturers with sales above $1 billion said they were considering shifting some production from China to the United States. The factors they pointed to were not only that wages and benefits were rising in China, but the country is also enacting stricter labor laws and experiencing more frequent labor disputes and strikes. “Companies are realizing it’s not as easy to do things in China as they thought,” says Hal Sirkin, a senior partner at Boston Consulting Group who has been predicting the convergence of labor costs since 2011. The flip side is that American workers are becoming more attractive — for a mix of reasons. Worker productivity has been rising steadily over the years. But also, BCG says, the decline of U.S. organized labor is luring some multinational corporations home, particularly to the nonunion South. Unions, for their part, have often responded by allowing wages to fall in order to keep jobs in the United States. Ford started bringing back production from China and Mexico after an agreement with the United Auto Workers let the company hire new “second-tier” workers at lower wages.
|
Plumer 5/1 (Brad, reporter, former editor at the New Republic, cites Jay Parker, the president of Lenovo’s operations in North America, cites statistics from the Reshoring Initiative, an industry-led effort to bring jobs to the US, founded by Harry Moser, who sits on the board of the National Institute of Metalworking Skills, BS in Mechanical Engineering and MS from MIT, and an MBA from the University of Chicago, cites Scott Paul of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, The Washington Post, May 1, 2013, “Is U.S. manufacturing making a comeback — or is it just hype?,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/01/is-u-s-manufacturing-set-for-a-comeback-or-is-it-all-hype/, alp)
|
It’s hardly news when a U.S. firm moves to China. what about when a Chinese company sets up in the U S Lenovo is expanding into the U.S. market and needs the flexibility to assemble units for speedy delivery While it’s still cheaper to build things in China famously low Chinese wages have risen in recent years. we could offset a portion of labor costs by saving on logistics,” economists are debating whether these are a blip — or whether they signal the beginning of a major renaissances for American manufacturing. the logic of a manufacturing comeback remains compelling. Besides the shrinking wage gap the productivity of the American worker keeps rising. Shipping costs are rising, making outsourcing more costly. the surge in shale gas drilling gives the U S cheap domestic energy to bolster industries such as petrochemicals. any significant uptick in domestic manufacturing after a decades-long decline could bolster the economy and spur innovation. we’re starting to lay the groundwork where we’ll start to see a real effect three to 10 years from now.” what does that groundwork look like? For many analysts, the narrowing of the wage gap is the most significant factor. Whereas the gap in labor costs was about $17 per hour in 2006, that could shrink to as little as $7 per hour by 2015, says North, an economist with Euler Hermes, a credit insurer that works with manufacturers. “If I stay here, I have lower inventory costs, lower transportation costs. I’m closer to my market, I can have higher-quality production and I can keep my technology.” In a February 2012 survey from the BCG 37 percent of U.S. manufacturers with sales above $1 billion said they were considering shifting production from China to the U S the country is enacting stricter labor laws and experiencing more frequent labor disputes and strikes. “Companies are realizing it’s not as easy to do things in China as they thought,” says Sirkin, a senior partner at B C G American workers are becoming more attractive Worker productivity has been rising steadily the decline of U.S. organized labor is luring multinational corporations home to the nonunion South. Unions responded by allowing wages to fall to keep jobs in the U S Ford started bringing back production from China and Mexico after an agreement with the United Auto Workers let the company hire workers at lower wages.
|
Prefer predictive evidence – even if the aff bolsters some areas of manufacturing, broad reshoring solves the entire advantage because it ensures a manufacturing renaissance – concessions on unionization, wage gaps, productivity increases, and logistics costs prove
| 5,285 | 265 | 2,365 | 879 | 37 | 398 | 0.042093 | 0.452787 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,738 |
Since 1972, America's manufacturing output more than doubled. Between 1997 and 2008, its dollar value rose by a third. In 2010, the U.S. accounted for 19.4% of global manufacturing value added, just shy of China's 19.8%. The BCG study is titled "Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S." In truth, though, manufacturing never went entirely away. It seemed to in part because our factories, like our farms, are so much more productive: Factories churn out 2.5 times as much they did in 1972 with a third fewer workers. It's the jobs that went away. What also departed was America's post-World War II dominance. Because the war had destroyed European and Japanese factories while ours went unscathed, the U.S. in the early 1950s accounted for 40% of the world's manufactured goods. Our share today is half that not because our output has shrunk but because the world's has expanded faster. The most interesting aspect of the study is its argument that the U.S. is in the early phases of becoming a more attractive place to locate factories. Within five years, BCG maintains, it will no longer be cheaper to manufacture some goods in China than in the U.S. Rising Chinese wages and land costs, a weakening dollar and superior U.S. factory productivity are among the reasons the cost gap will close. BCG urges American companies to reassess their China strategy. "China should no longer be treated as the default option," BCG says. It will remain the place to make products that require a lot of labor, especially those destined for Asian markets. But products turned out in modest volumes with relatively little labor may be best manufactured in the U.S.
|
Lehner 11 (Vice President of the Progressive Farmer. 2011 “Reports of American Manufacturing's Death Are Exaggerated” http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/view/ag/printablePage.do?ID=BLOG_PRINTABLE_PAGE&bypassCache=true&pageLayout=v4&blogHandle=editorsnotebook&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc31d5e6e301336f3dd2381059&articleTitle=Reports+of+American+Manufacturing%27s+Death+Are+Exaggerated&editionName=DTNAgFreeSiteOnline)
|
Since 1972, America's manufacturing output more than doubled. Between 1997 and 2008, its dollar value rose by a third. In 2010, the U.S. accounted for 19.4% of global manufacturing value added In truth, manufacturing never went entirely away It seemed to in part because our factories are so much more productive: Factories churn out 2.5 times as much they did in 1972 with a third fewer workers The most interesting aspect of the study is its argument that the U.S. is in the early phases of becoming a more attractive place to locate factories. Within five years, BCG maintains, it will no longer be cheaper to manufacture some goods in China than in the U.S. Rising Chinese wages and land costs, a weakening dollar and superior U.S. factory productivity are among the reasons the cost gap will close. China should no longer be treated as the default option But products turned out in modest volumes with relatively little labor may be best manufactured in the U.S.
|
Manufacturing in the US comparatively more attractive now – Chinese constraints are rising faster than ours
| 1,676 | 107 | 968 | 283 | 16 | 166 | 0.056537 | 0.586572 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,739 |
Between June 1979 and December 2009, the manufacturing industry lost nearly 41 percent of its jobs to increased production in countries with cheaper manufacturing costs, such as China, and to the Great Recession, which caused a large decline in national production. Since 2009, as the economy began to rebound, there have been improvements in the manufacturing industry. For multiple reasons, including rising wages, political instability in countries where products were previously manufactured, and rising costs surrounding transportation of products, some companies have found that it is now more economical to manufacture within the U.S. This shift has led to a so called “re-shoring.” The Super Sectors and GDP In order to understand the future of the manufacturing sector and its effects on industrial real estate, one must first understand the industry’s past broad trends and its role in the U.S. economy. Goods-producing industries, including manufacturing, have decreased as a share of GDP during the last half century; however, this focus on GDP’s declining share misses an important point. Although the share has declined, and employment has dropped in absolute terms, manufacturing output has increased.
|
Ronderos 13 (L. Nicholas, Regional Plan Association's New York Director. He is the primary representative of RPA in New York City, Lower Hudson Valley and New York State. His priorities include fundraising and project administrative responsibilities, staffing the RPA New York State Committee and coordinating RPA's participation in significant regional projects and initiatives in New York. Nicolas has conducted recent RPA projects in demographic, economic and market analysis He holds a B.A. in Anthropology from Los Andes University, a M.S. in Urban Policy Analysis and Management from The New School and a Certificate in Real Estate Finance and Investment from New York University. He is Adjunct Professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology's College of Architecture and Design. “Stabilization of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector and Its Impact on Industrial Space,” NAIOP Research Foundation - The Foundation's research projects, educational programs and outreach activities have a united purpose: to support developers, owners and others involved in commercial real estate in meeting and exceeding the needs and expectations of our communities, now and in the future, June 2013, http://www.naiop.org/~/media/Research/Research/Research%20Reports/Stabilization%20of%20the%20US%20Manufacturing%20and%20Its%20Impact%20on%20Industrial%20Space/NAIOP_Ronderos_FINAL_web%20version.ashx //EH)
|
Since 2009, as the economy began to rebound, there have been improvements in the manufacturing industry For multiple reasons, including rising wages, political instability in countries where products were previously manufactured, and rising costs surrounding transportation of products, some companies have found that it is now more economical to manufacture within the U.S. This shift has led to a so called “re-shoring.” Goods-producing industries, including manufacturing, have decreased as a share of GDP during the last half century; however, this focus on GDP’s declining share misses an important point. Although the share has declined, and employment has dropped in absolute terms, manufacturing output has increased.
|
Manufacturing output increasing – reshoring since 09
| 1,216 | 52 | 725 | 184 | 7 | 105 | 0.038043 | 0.570652 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,740 |
As previously stated, the manufacturing sector reached its most recent low point during the Great Recession; however, since then, manufacturing industries have grown. While the economy as a whole has begun to rebuild, “between 2009 and 2010, manufacturing output grew at a rate more than double [that of] GDP.”1 The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the U.S. is, “expected to experience an increase in real output from $4.4 trillion to $5.7 trillion, a 2.8 percent annual increase, higher than the prerecession level of real output,” and this, “14.5 percent projected growth rate over the 2010-2020 period makes this industry the fastest in output growth.” Other reports have also projected similar growth within the industry, which could play a major role in U.S. GDP. A Brookings report from 2012 entitled “The Outsized Benefits of U.S. Manufacturing” states that, “manufacturing accounts for 11 percent of U.S. GDP” and that this amount could increase if certain steps are taken. These steps revolve around technological innovation, which is seen “as key to the future of manufacturing in this country.”4 As a result of technology advances, and the difference between wages in the U.S. and China beginning to shrink, companies are expected to bring their manufacturing of high technology products back to the U.S. A 2011 article by The New American magazine states that this “resultant sea-change by repatriating jobs in these industries would be massive, potentially adding $100 billion to America’s GDP, while reducing oil consumption due to lower transportation costs.” At the same time, the Boston Consulting Group suggests that this growth would create jobs due to a “shortage of highly skilled manufacturing workers” possibly reaching “approximately 875,000 machinists, welders, industrial-machinery mechanics, and industry engineers by 2020.”6 As measured by GDP, employment, and output, the manufacturing industry is projected to grow in the next decade, and this growth will cause a demand for more space, having major implications for industrial real estate products.
|
Ronderos 13 (L. Nicholas, Regional Plan Association's New York Director. He is the primary representative of RPA in New York City, Lower Hudson Valley and New York State. His priorities include fundraising and project administrative responsibilities, staffing the RPA New York State Committee and coordinating RPA's participation in significant regional projects and initiatives in New York. Nicolas has conducted recent RPA projects in demographic, economic and market analysis He holds a B.A. in Anthropology from Los Andes University, a M.S. in Urban Policy Analysis and Management from The New School and a Certificate in Real Estate Finance and Investment from New York University. He is Adjunct Professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology's College of Architecture and Design. “Stabilization of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector and Its Impact on Industrial Space,” NAIOP Research Foundation - The Foundation's research projects, educational programs and outreach activities have a united purpose: to support developers, owners and others involved in commercial real estate in meeting and exceeding the needs and expectations of our communities, now and in the future, June 2013, http://www.naiop.org/~/media/Research/Research/Research%20Reports/Stabilization%20of%20the%20US%20Manufacturing%20and%20Its%20Impact%20on%20Industrial%20Space/NAIOP_Ronderos_FINAL_web%20version.ashx //EH)
|
the manufacturing sector reached its most recent low point during the Great Recession; however, since then, manufacturing industries have grown between 2009 and 2010, manufacturing output grew at a rate more than double [that of] GDP the U.S. is, “expected to experience an increase in real output from $4.4 trillion to $5.7 trillion, a 2.8 percent annual increase Other reports have also projected similar growth within the industry, which could play a major role in U.S. GDP These steps revolve around technological innovation, which is seen “as key to the future of manufacturing in this country.” As a result of technology advances, and the difference between wages in the U.S. and China beginning to shrink, companies are expected to bring their manufacturing of high technology products back to the U.S. this growth would create jobs due to a “shortage of highly skilled manufacturing workers” possibly reaching “approximately 875,000 machinists, welders, industrial-machinery mechanics, and industry engineers by 2020.” the manufacturing industry is projected to grow in the next decade
|
New Study concludes manufacturing output increasing in the status quo – re shoring movements
| 2,092 | 92 | 1,093 | 322 | 14 | 168 | 0.043478 | 0.521739 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,741 |
Twelve million Americans are currently unemployed, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics. Forty percent of the unemployed have been so for at least six months, and the average job seeker spends 36.9 weeks out of work. The good news for the jobless? US industry is now in the throes of a “reshoring” trend: “Next year we’re going to bring some production to the US,” Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) CEO Tim Cook told Bloomberg Businessweek in December. “This doesn’t mean that Apple will do it ourselves, but we’ll be working with people and we’ll be investing our money.” The bad news? The Bureau of Prisons is angling to have as many reshored jobs as possible filled by federal prisoners. Between 2000 and 2011, wages in Asia have nearly doubled, according to the International Labour Organization. The Chinese government is planning to increase the minimum wage by 13% annually until 2015. Labor unrest, formerly unheard of in Asia, has become more frequent, with companies routinely raising workers’ pay after strikes. At the same time, wages paid to federal inmates working in prison factories across the United States have remained flat, ranging from $0.23 to $1.15 an hour. Federal Prison Industries -- also known by the trade name UNICOR -- is a self-sustaining, self-funding company within the US Bureau of Prisons. It is owned wholly by the US government and was created by an act of Congress in 1934 to function as a rehabilitative tool to teach real-world work skills to federal inmates. These inmates were historically limited to producing goods for government use, such as furniture, uniforms, even, believe it or not, components for Patriot missiles. However, as Bob Sloan, a prison industries consultant and Executive Director of the Voters Legislative Transparency Project, explains to me, Congress amended the 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act “to allow private companies access to the labor of federal prisoners and UNICOR facilities” under what's known as the Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program, or PIECP. “Additionally, the FPI board of directors authorized a ‘repatriation’ program where US companies can bring jobs back to the US making products no longer manufactured in the US,” Sloan tells me. “Prisoners will be paid standard prison wages.” Indeed, FPI/UNICOR’s 2012 annual report states that the board of directors “has approved 14 pilot programs for repatriated products.” It also details “substantial losses” incurred and asserts that “inmate employment levels have dropped precipitously.” To be sure, not every job being reshored will be filled by an inmate. But according to the report, “FPI anticipates these pilot projects will assist in further reducing its losses," which would logically induce the Bureau of Prisons to funnel as much business as possible to its 109 existing UNICOR factories, which currently employ just over 21,000 inmates. Though prison authorities welcome the opportunity to close their budget gaps through its industries, companies on the outside with which they will compete will be negatively impacted. States have been partnering with private industry to manufacture goods in prison since the PIECP program was created by Congress in 1979. Prisoners in state prisons have packaged products for Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX), and Costco (NASDAQ:COST) subcontractors, and helped build a Wisconsin Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) distribution center. The goal is to keep as much of the population as busy as possible; as prison staff like to say, idle inmates are dangerous inmates. “While there is a need for training of our incarcerated members of society, that training should not come at the expense of workers on the outside who have committed no criminal act and lose their jobs to prisoners,” says Bob Sloan. And why would that well-trained, experienced free-world worker lose out to a prisoner? When a business owner takes advantage of incentives that include facility leases for as little as $1 a year, tax subsidies or exemptions such as Nevada’s Modified Business Tax, and a host of methods to avoid paying inmates even the minimum rates guaranteed by law, it is difficult for those paying a living wage, benefits, vacation pay, and so forth to compete. If Apple were so inclined, inmates working under the banner of UNICOR's Electronics Business Group seem to be able to do many of the same things as Foxconn employees -- and their products will be "Made in the USA." Further, critics charge that prison labor not only drives down wages on the outside, its use can also counteract the skills training inmates receive while incarcerated -- if production in one's new area of expertise moves behind bars, where will an inmate look for work after he is released? As for the inmates themselves, most are not immediately concerned with their effect on the outside labor market. To quote one, "F--k society, they locked me up." Bob Sloan and I have filed a Freedom of Information Act request in an attempt to identify the 14 industries set for repatriation. Stay tuned.
|
Rohrlich 13 (Justin, Emmy Award-winning Head Writer of Minyanville's World In Review, the world's first (and only) animated business news show, “Will Your Job Be ‘Reshored’ To A Federal Prisoner?,” March 13th, 2013, Restoring Liberty – Website published by Joe Miller - attended Yale Law School where he earned his Juris doctorate. He also holds a Master’s Degree in Economics from the University of Alaska, http://joemiller.us/2013/03/will-your-job-be-reshored-to-a-federal-prisoner/ //EH)
|
The Bureau of Prisons is angling to have as many reshored jobs as possible filled by federal prisoners Between 2000 and 2011, wages in Asia have nearly doubled The Chinese government is planning to increase the minimum wage by 13% annually until 2015. Labor unrest, formerly unheard of in Asia, has become more frequent, with companies routinely raising workers’ pay after strikes. wages paid to federal inmates working in prison factories across the United States have remained flat, ranging from $0.23 to $1.15 an hour Federal Prison Industries is a self-sustaining, self-funding company within the US Bureau of Prisons. Congress amended the 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act “to allow private companies access to the labor of federal prisoners and UNICOR facilities the FPI board of directors authorized a ‘repatriation’ program where US companies can bring jobs back to the US making products no longer manufactured in the US Prisoners will be paid standard prison /UNICOR’s 2012 annual report states that the board of directors “has approved 14 pilot programs for repatriated products which would logically induce the Bureau of Prisons to funnel as much business as possible to its 109 existing UNICOR factories, which currently employ just over 21,000 inmates Prisoners in state prisons have packaged products for Microsoft Starbucks and Costco The goal is to keep as much of the population as busy as possible; as prison staff like to say, idle inmates are dangerous inmates it is difficult for those paying a living wage, benefits, vacation pay, and so forth to compete.
|
Re-shoring happening now – Bureau of Prisons push
| 5,067 | 49 | 1,579 | 814 | 8 | 253 | 0.009828 | 0.310811 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,742 |
A Manufacturing Powerhouse Some experts believe that ““Hecho en Mexico” – Made in Mexico – will become as common in the next 15 years as “Made in China” has been in the past 15. Mexico already exports more manufactured goods than the rest of Latin America combined. It is the No. 1 exporter of beer and the fourth largest exporter of automobiles. Its factories are the world’s top producers of refrigerators and flat screen televisions. Its electronics exports grew 73 percent between 2002 and 2012, and now it is becoming a major aerospace manufacturer. Some of the same factors that are making American companies “re-shore” production from China to the United States are making American and European companies consider manufacturing in Mexico. Some experts refer to that as “nearshoring.” Bringing production to Mexico can bring it closer to American consumers, reduce transportation costs, simplify logistics and make it easier to access reliable suppliers. Because of the North American Free Trade Act in 1994, many manufacturers already view the United States and Mexico as a single market for production purposes. Manufacturing is returning from China. Starting in the 1990s, Mexico lost thousands of manufacturing jobs to China. Those job losses escalated emigration to the U.S. While China’s labor costs have soared in recent years, Mexico’s labor costs have remained fairly stable. According to the HSBC bank, in 2000 it cost just $0.32 an hour to employ a Chinese manufacturing worker against $1.51 for a Mexican worker. By last year Chinese wages had quintupled to $1.63 while Mexican wages had risen only to $2.10. Lower transportation costs make up the difference for many products. Transportation from Asia to America became much more expensive in recent years. The price of oil has tripled since 2000, making it more attractive to manufacture close to markets. A container can take three months to travel from China to the United States, but products trucked in from Mexico can take just a couple of days.
|
Idaho Department of Labor 7/9 (Idaho Department of Labor provides a broad range of state and local data on past, current and projected labor market conditions, including the monthly unemployment rate. Employment, unemployment, demographic, income and other statistics are key economic indicators produced in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau. The division also establishes Idaho’s average weekly benefit amount and the average tax rate for employer-paid unemployment insurance taxes and monitors the health of the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. In the future, the division is being challenged to maintain the abundance, quality and timeliness of labor market information in the face of persisting cuts in the federal support for department programs. {If you wish to have more information about them, here is a pdf outlining their goals/mission http://labor.idaho.gov/publications/AgencyInfo/AgencySummary.pdf}, “Mexico Shows Strong Economic Growth, Lower Outmigration,” July 9th, 2013, http://idaholabor.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/mexico-shows-strong-economic-growth-lower-outmigration/ //EH)
|
Made in Mexico – will become as common in the next 15 years as “Made in China Mexico already exports more manufactured goods than the rest of Latin America combined Its electronics exports grew 73 percent between 2002 and 2012, and now it is becoming a major aerospace manufacturer Some of the same factors that are making American companies “re-shore” production from China to the United States are making American and European companies consider manufacturing in Mexico Bringing production to Mexico can bring it closer to American consumers, reduce transportation costs, simplify logistics and make it easier to access reliable suppliers Because of the North American Free Trade Act in 1994, many manufacturers already view the United States and Mexico as a single market for production purposes While China’s labor costs have soared in recent years, Mexico’s labor costs have remained fairly stable in 2000 it cost just $0.32 an hour to employ a Chinese manufacturing worker against $1.51 for a Mexican worker. By last year Chinese wages had quintupled to $1.63 while Mexican wages had risen only to $2.10. Lower transportation costs make up the difference for many products Transportation from Asia to America became much more expensive in recent years. The price of oil has tripled since 2000, making it more attractive to manufacture close to markets. A container can take three months to travel from China to the United States, but products trucked in from Mexico can take just a couple of days.
|
Nearshoring happening in the status quo absent the plan – rising wage costs in Asia
| 2,020 | 83 | 1,503 | 328 | 15 | 246 | 0.045732 | 0.75 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,743 |
The resurgence of U.S. manufacturing employment since the trough of the Great Recession has been remarkable. The recent period of robust employment gains has been the longest since the early nineties, with the sector adding nearly half-million jobs since January 2010. Also, the recent pace of job gains in the sector has been highest in fifteen years. While much of the strength has been due to a cyclical rebound, especially in the automotive sector, some can be attributed to the slowing trend of offshoring. In fact, approximately 56,000, or one-quarter of the jobs created over the last year is due to less firms moving production overseas. Changing global conditions are slowly beginning to erode China’s advantages which have made it a manufacturing hub for many of the products consumed in America and elsewhere. The rapidly rising wages, which have been outpacing productivity gains, have steadily increased the unit labor costs of production. This is all the more apparent when accounting for the renminbi appreciation, both in nominal and real terms. Furthermore, risks associated with hauling goods across great distances together with volatile shipping costs and long lead-times have also contributed to the slowing trend. This is accentuated by a growing tendency towards customization and agile manufacturing. Moreover, the overarching trend of increased capital intensity has had a two-fold effect. Firstly, it has made labor-cost savings less important, weakening the case for offshoring. And secondly, it has accentuated the need for closer ties between production and R&D, benefits of IP protection, and potential security risks of producing offshore, thereby strengthening the case for onshoring. Onshoring en masse is yet to emerge and unlikely to do so for the manufacturing sector as a whole, but the aforementioned factors are beginning to set the stage for a sustained deceleration in offshoring activity as well as improving the competitive position of industries that did not offshore, or NSOMIs. A gradual comeback may be possible in some industries over the coming decade. This is especially likely across the recently-offshored manufacturing industries, or ROMIs, which tend to be relatively more capital intensive, as well as furniture. Interestingly, future onshoring may not involve shuttering of factories in China’s established industrial clusters, but rather diverting their output from North American to the rapidly growing Asian market. At the same time the U.S. market would begin to be served by factories at home employing American workers. But jobs onshored will not be of the magnitude or skill-level as the ones that were lost to offshoring in the first place. Also, the near six million jobs lost over the past decade is unlikely to be made up fully in the foreseeable future. New manufacturing jobs will require less labor-content and consist of high-skilled, highly-productive positions, in which America has a competitive advantage. Exploiting this advantage is the only way American manufacturing can attain meaningful and lasting progress thereby leading to the industry’s rebirth.
|
TD Economics 12 (Headquartered in Toronto, Canada, with offices around the world, TD Bank Group offers a full range of financial products and services, “OFFSHORING, ONSHORING, AND THE REBIRTH OF AMERICAN MANUFACTURING,” October 15th, 2012, Special Report by TD economics, http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/md1012_onshoring.pdf //EH)
|
resurgence of U.S. manufacturing employment since the trough of the Great Recession has been remarkable the recent pace of job gains in the sector has been highest in fifteen years some can be attributed to the slowing trend of offshoring approximately 56,000, or one-quarter of the jobs created over the last year is due to less firms moving production overseas. Changing global conditions are slowly beginning to erode China’s advantages which have made it a manufacturing hub for many of the products consumed in America and elsewhere The rapidly rising wages, which have been outpacing productivity gains, have steadily increased the unit labor costs of production. This is all the more apparent when accounting for the renminbi appreciation, both in nominal and real terms associated with hauling goods across great distances together with volatile shipping costs and long lead-times have also contributed to the slowing trend. This is accentuated by a growing tendency towards customization and agile manufacturing. Firstly, it has made labor-cost savings less important, weakening the case for offshoring And secondly, it has accentuated the need for closer ties between production and R&D, benefits of IP protection, and potential security risks of producing offshore, thereby strengthening the case for onshoring aforementioned factors are beginning to set the stage for a sustained deceleration in offshoring activity as well as improving the competitive position of industries that did not offshore But jobs onshored will not be of the magnitude or skill-level as the ones that were lost to offshoring in the first plac New manufacturing jobs will require less labor-content and consist of high-skilled, highly-productive positions, in which America has a competitive advantage Exploiting this advantage is the only way American manufacturing can attain meaningful and lasting progress thereby leading to the industry’s rebirth.
|
Onshoring happening now – rising labor costs in Asia, transportation costs, R&D in the US
| 3,127 | 89 | 1,935 | 483 | 15 | 294 | 0.031056 | 0.608696 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,744 |
One strain of thinking holds that the chief rival of the United States manufacturing sector is China. From 1991 to 2007, US imports from China grew by a staggering 1,156% – while, over the same period, the fraction of the US working population employed in manufacturing fell by a third. China accounts for 40% of US imports in luggage, toys and footwear, and 30% of apparel, textiles, furniture and electrical appliances. In 2000, average Chinese wages were 22 times lower than average US wages. Those who fear China's disruptive impact on US manufacturing believe Americans can take cheer from the fact that China's growth appears to be stumbling. Boston Consulting Group reasoned that a more sophisticated Chinese economy has resulted in better-paid Chinese workers, which reduces the costs company can save by basing production there. At the same time, global fuel prices have tripled since 2000, making shipment of manufactured goods all the way from China an expensive exercise. That could make the United States a competitive alternative again for manufacturing, BCG argued. There is, however, a long way to go before China falls behind the US. There's still a significant difference between average US wages and Chinese wages remains significant. China's per capita annual income of $5,445, along with a quarter of its population still living in rural areas, contributes to cheap labor. And even if these jobs move away from China, they are more likely to end up in places like India, Bangladesh and Africa – where wages are even cheaper – than return to US shores.
|
Khan 7/24 (Mubin S., Special Correspondent of New Age, a leading Bangladeshi newspaper, graduate of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, The Guardian, July 24, 2013, “US manufacturing and the troubled promise of reshoring,” http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/24/us-manufacturing-troubled-promise-reshoring, alp)
|
One strain of thinking holds that the chief rival of U S manufacturing is China. US imports from China grew by 1,156% the fraction of the US working population employed in manufacturing fell by a third. China accounts for 40% of US imports Americans can take cheer from the fact that China's growth appears to be stumbling. B C G reasoned that a more sophisticated Chinese economy resulted in better-paid Chinese workers, which reduces the costs company can save by basing there. global fuel prices tripled since 2000, making shipment of manufactured goods all the way from China expensive That could make the U S competitive again There is, however, a long way to go before China falls behind the US. even if these jobs move away from China, they are more likely to end up in places like India, Bangladesh and Africa – where wages are even cheaper – than return to US shores.
|
The aff doesn’t solve – jobs will just shift to Bangladesh
| 1,572 | 58 | 876 | 259 | 11 | 155 | 0.042471 | 0.598456 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,745 |
Is American manufacturing dead? You might think so reading most of the nation's editorial pages or watching the endless laments in the news that "nothing is made in America anymore," and that our manufacturing jobs have vanished to China, Mexico and South Korea. Yet the empirical evidence tells a different story—of a thriving and growing U.S. manufacturing sector, and a country that remains by far the world's largest manufacturer. This is a particularly sensitive topic in my hometown of Flint, Mich., where auto-plant closings have meant lost jobs and difficult transitions for the displaced. But while it's true that the U.S. has lost more than seven million manufacturing jobs since the late 1970s, our manufacturing output has continued to expand. International data compiled by the United Nations on global output from 1970-2009 show this success story. Excluding recession-related decreases in 2001 and 2008-09, America's manufacturing output has continued to increase since 1970. In every year since 2004, manufacturing output has exceeded $2 trillion (in constant 2005 dollars), twice the output produced in America's factories in the early 1970s. Taken on its own, U.S. manufacturing would rank today as the sixth largest economy in the world, just behind France and ahead of the United Kingdom, Italy and Brazil. In 2009, the most recent full year for which international data are available, our manufacturing output was $2.155 trillion (including mining and utilities). That's more than 45% higher than China's, the country we're supposedly losing ground to. Despite recent gains in China and elsewhere, the U.S. still produced more than 20% of global manufacturing output in 2009. The truth is that America still makes a lot of stuff, and we're making more of it than ever before. We're merely able to do it with a fraction of the workers needed in the past. Consider the incredible, increasing productivity of America's manufacturing workers: The average U.S. factory worker is responsible today for more than $180,000 of annual manufacturing output, triple the $60,000 in 1972. Increases in productivity are a direct result of capital investments in productivity-enhancing technology, such as GM's next generation Ecotec engine. These increases are a direct result of capital investments in productivity-enhancing technology, which last year helped boost output to record levels in industries like computers and semiconductors, medical equipment and supplies, pharmaceuticals and medicine, and oil and natural-gas equipment.
|
WSJ 11 (Wall Street Journal. 2/25/11. "The Truth About U.S. Manufacturing."online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104576122353274221570.html.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)
|
Is American manufacturing dead? You might think so reading most of the nation's editorial pages Yet the empirical evidence tells a different story—of a thriving and growing U.S. manufacturing sector, and a country that remains by far the world's largest manufacturer But while it's true that the U.S. has lost more than seven million manufacturing jobs since the late 1970s, our manufacturing output has continued to expand. International data compiled by the United Nations on global output from 1970-2009 show this success story. In every year since 2004, manufacturing output has exceeded $2 trillion twice the output produced in America's factories in the early 1970s. Taken on its own, U.S. manufacturing would rank today as the sixth largest economy in the world, just behind France and ahead of the United Kingdom, Italy and Brazil Despite recent gains in China and elsewhere, the U.S. still produced more than 20% of global manufacturing output in 2009. The truth is that America still makes a lot of stuff, and we're making more of it than ever before. We're merely able to do it with a fraction of the workers needed in the past Increases in productivity are a direct result of capital investments in productivity-enhancing technology,
|
Manufacturing industry empirically resilient
| 2,542 | 44 | 1,245 | 389 | 4 | 203 | 0.010283 | 0.521851 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,746 |
The 20th Century is often called the American Century, marking the U.S. rise to global pre-eminence. Manufacturing powered our ascendance, factories created our prosperity.But the American Century is nearly a decade gone, manufacturing jobs are dwindling, and the future promises fierce competition from the new industrial giants of China and India (and the old giants of Europe). The recession drags painfully on, and dozens of other competitor countries target what they sense is a new U.S. vulnerability.It is time to finally resign ourselves to becoming a second-rate manufacturing nation? Not if manufacturers have anything to say about it. Manufacturers in the United States have adapted before to survive, and they will again. First, the good news. The United States remains the world’s largest manufacturing nation, accounting for more than 19.5% of global manufacturing output. In 2007, the U.S. produced more volume of products than ever before, and manufacturing represented $1.6 trillion of our economy, or about 11.6% of gross domestic product. Manufacturing in the United States accounts for more than 12 million jobs and supports millions more in other sectors. And manufacturing jobs are among the most highly compensated in the nation, paying on average about 20% more than those in other sectors. Yes, we are shedding manufacturing jobs. In the U.S., manufacturing has lost some 1.5 million jobs since the current downturn started, continuing a long-term trend that dates back at least until the early 1980s. But to concentrate on aggregate job losses masks a more profound trend–vastly improved productivity. Americans are making a lot more stuff with a lot fewer people. This increased productivity is largely due to continuous innovation in the manufacturing sector and high investment levels in new technology. Examples abound. In the northwestern Pennsylvania town of Meadville, a group of businesses evolved over a century into a tool-and-die sector of more than 130 companies. The companies had grown with the American auto industry, and their fates were tied to Detroit. Ten years ago Meadville’s Starn Tool & Manufacturing, with 54 employees, did the overwhelming majority of its business with auto suppliers. Today, the auto industry represents only 5% of its business. Like other companies in the area, Starn adapted to changing markets and is now producing tools and parts for everything from satellites to Segway scooters. Down in Pittsboro, N.C., a former hosiery mill where 400 laborers once worked on looms is now home to a biotechnology company, Biolex Therapeutics, where 90 workers use advanced laboratory equipment to develop a drug for a serious liver ailment. Even the lowest paid of the lab technicians earns far more than the seamstresses in the old hosiery mill. In Haleyville, Ala., Exxel Outdoors recently revved up to produce up to 2 million of its top-end line of sleeping bags. Exxel was manufacturing in China, but as costs of production and shipping rose, it made economic sense to move production back to the United States. In general as manufacturing becomes more automated, both in the U.S. and abroad, lower labor costs in places like China and India are increasingly less important to the competitive picture. But the bad news is that regardless of labor costs, U.S. manufacturers face disadvantages that are largely beyond the control of individual firms. A 2008 study by National Association of Manufacturers affiliate organization The Manufacturing Institute and the Manufacturer’s Alliance/MAPI compared the cost of manufacturing in the U.S. to a group of nine industrial nations including Germany, Japan, China and Mexico. Because of higher taxes, energy and regulatory costs, U.S. manufacturers face a 17.6% structural cost disadvantage when competing against firms from these nine countries. But progress is being made. The same group estimated that just two years earlier, in 2006, American firms faced a 31.7% structural cost disadvantage. History provides some reassurance regarding recovery. American manufacturing has always come back after past downturns, and most economists forecast recovery by the second quarter of next year 2010. For U.S. manufacturers, the American Century lives on, and there is no reason to accept–or expect–a second-rate status.
|
Engler 09 (John, the former three-term governor of Michigan, is president of the National Association of Manufacturers, the nation’s largest industrial trade association. “Forging A Second American Century,” Forbes, May 28th, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/27/john-engler-manufacturing-business-america.html //EH)
|
But the American Century is nearly a decade gone, manufacturing jobs are dwindling, and the future promises fierce competition from the new industrial giants of China and India It is time to finally resign ourselves to becoming a second-rate manufacturing nation? Not if manufacturers have anything to say about it. Manufacturers in the United States have adapted before to survive, and they will again The United States remains the world’s largest manufacturing nation accounting for more than 19.5% of global manufacturing output In 2007, the U.S. produced more volume of products than ever before But to concentrate on aggregate job losses masks a more profound trend–vastly improved productivity. Americans are making a lot more stuff with a lot fewer people This increased productivity is largely due to continuous innovation in the manufacturing sector and high investment levels in new technology Ten years ago Meadville’s Starn Tool & Manufacturing, with 54 employees, did the overwhelming majority of its business with auto suppliers. Today, the auto industry represents only 5% of its business. Like other companies in the area, Starn adapted to changing markets and is now producing tools and parts for everything from satellites to Segway scooters. In general as manufacturing becomes more automated, both in the U.S. and abroad, lower labor costs in places like China and India are increasingly less important to the competitive picture. History provides some reassurance regarding recovery. American manufacturing has always come back after past downturns, and most economists forecast recovery by the second quarter of next year 2010. For U.S. manufacturers, the American Century lives on, and there is no reason to accept–or expect–a second-rate status
|
Manufacturing industry resilient – technological innovation
| 4,322 | 59 | 1,768 | 671 | 6 | 272 | 0.008942 | 0.405365 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,747 |
Most of the evidence that “reshoring” is happening is still very much anecdotal, and there’s a limit to how far it is likely to go. For one thing, North says, the industries most reliant on cheap labor — including textiles and mass-produced clothing — will likely never return to the United States. Moreover, China has built up a formidable manufacturing infrastructure that will keep many companies there, even as labor costs shift. “Chinese suppliers have now developed dense supplier networks that now have their own capabilities for introducing new products,” says Suzanne Berger, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies manufacturing. “And, of course, China is a market that’s growing extremely rapidly — so many companies will want to stay in close proximity to those customers.” What’s more, several experts noted, the Chinese government may well try to prevent the gap in labor costs from narrowing — either by subsidizing domestic firms or through other policies. “I don’t think you want to underestimate the willingness of China to protect its manufacturing,” says Paul. “Even in the face of steep odds.”
|
Plumer 5/1 (Brad, reporter, former editor at the New Republic, cites Jay Parker, the president of Lenovo’s operations in North America, cites statistics from the Reshoring Initiative, an industry-led effort to bring jobs to the US, founded by Harry Moser, who sits on the board of the National Institute of Metalworking Skills, BS in Mechanical Engineering and MS from MIT, and an MBA from the University of Chicago, cites Scott Paul of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, The Washington Post, May 1, 2013, “Is U.S. manufacturing making a comeback — or is it just hype?,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/01/is-u-s-manufacturing-set-for-a-comeback-or-is-it-all-hype/, alp)
|
evidence that “reshoring” is happening is anecdotal there’s a limit to how far it is likely to go. the industries most reliant on cheap labor will likely never return to the U S China has built up a formidable manufacturing infrastructure that will keep many companies there, even as labor costs shift. “Chinese suppliers have dense networks that have their own capabilities for introducing new products,” says Berger, a political science professor at M I T companies will want to stay in close proximity to those customers.” What’s more the Chinese government may try to prevent the gap in labor costs from narrowing by subsidizing domestic firms or other policies. don’t underestimate the willingness of China to protect its manufacturing,”
|
Low skill jobs and Chinese subsidies prevent effective reshoring
| 1,161 | 64 | 742 | 185 | 9 | 120 | 0.048649 | 0.648649 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,748 |
I wrote in a previous post about why America's manufacturing sector, despite record output, is actually in very deep trouble: record output doesn't prove the sector healthy when we are running a huge trade deficit in manufactured goods, i.e. consuming more goods than we produce and plugging the gap with asset sales and debt. But this analysis of the problem only touches the quantitative surface of our ongoing industrial decline. Real industries are not abstract aggregates; they are complex ecosystems of suppliers and supply chains, skills and customer relationships, long-term investments and returns. Deindustrialization is thus a more complex process than is usually realized. It is not just layoffs and crumbling buildings; industries sicken and die in complicated ways. To take just one example, when American producers are pushed out of foreign markets by protectionism abroad and out of domestic markets by the export subsidies of foreign nations, it is not just immediate profits that are lost. Declining sales undermine their scale economies, driving up their costs and making them even less competitive. Less profit means less money to plow into future technology development. Less access to sophisticated foreign markets means less exposure to sophisticated foreign technology and diverse foreign buyer needs. When an industry shrinks, it ceases to support the complex web of skills, many of them outside the industry itself, upon which it depends. These skills often take years to master, so they only survive if the industry (and its supporting industries, several tiers deep into the supply chain) remain in continuous operation. The same goes for specialized suppliers. Thus, for example, in the words of the Financial Times's James Kynge: The more Boeing outsourced, the quicker the machine-tool companies that supplied it went bust, providing opportunities for Chinese competitors to buy the technology they needed, better to supply companies like Boeing. Similarly, America starts being invisibly shut out of future industries which struggling or dying industries would have spawned. For example, in the words of tech CEO Richard Elkus: Just as the loss of the VCR wiped out America's ability to participate in the design and manufacture of broadcast video-recording equipment, the loss of the design and manufacturing of consumer electronic cameras in the United States virtually guaranteed the demise of its professional camera market... Thus, as the United States lost its position in consumer electronics, it began to lose its competitive base in commercial electronics as well. The losses in these related infrastructures would begin to negatively affect other down-stream industries, not the least of which was the automobile... Like an ecosystem, a competitive economy is a holistic entity, far greater than the sum of its parts. (Emphasis added.) One important example of this is the decline of the once-supreme American semiconductor industry, visible in declining plant investment relative to the rest of the world. In 2009, the whole of North America received only 21% of the world's investment in semiconductor capital equipment, compared to 64% going to China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. The U.S. now has virtually no position in photolithographic steppers, the ultra-expensive machines, among the most sophisticated technological devices in existence, that "print" the microscopic circuits of computer chips on silicon wafers. America's lack of a position in steppers means that close collaboration between the makers of these machines and the companies that use them is no longer easy in the U.S. This collaboration traditionally drove both the chip and the stepper industries to new heights of performance. American companies had 90% of the world market in 1980, but have less than 10% today. The decay of the related printed circuit board (PCB) industry tells a similar tale. An extended 2008 excerpt from Manufacturing & Technology News is worth reading on this score: The state of this industry has gone further downhill from what seems to be eons ago in 2005. The bare printed circuit industry is extremely sick in North America. Many equipment manufacturers have disappeared or are a shallow shell of their former selves. Many have opted to follow their customers to Asia, building machines there. Many raw material vendors have also gone. What is basically left in the United States are very fragile manufacturers, weak in capital, struggling to supply [Original Equipment Manufacturers] at prices that do not contribute to profit. The majority of the remaining manufacturers should be called 'shops.' They are owner operated and employ themselves. They are small. They barely survive. They cannot invest. Most offer only small lot, quick-turn delivery. There is very little R&D, if any at all. They can't afford equipment. They are stale. The larger companies simply get into deeper debt loads. The profits aren't there to reinvest. Talent is no longer attracted to a dying industry and the remaining manufacturers have cut all incentives. PCB manufacturers need raw materials with which to produce their wares. There is hardly a copper clad lamination industry. Drill bits are coming from offshore. Imaging materials, specialty chemicals, metal finishing chemistry, film and capital equipment have disappeared from the United States. Saving a PCB shop isn't saving anything if its raw materials must come from offshore. As the mass exodus of PCB manufacturers heads east, so is their supply chain. All over America, other industries are quietly falling apart in similar ways. Losing positions in key technologies means that whatever brilliant innovations Americans may dream up in small start-up companies in the future, large-scale commercialization of those innovations will increasingly take place abroad. A similar fate befell Great Britain, which invented such staples of the postwar era as radar, the jet passenger plane, and the CAT scanner, only to see huge industries based on each end up in the U.S. For example, the U.S. invented photovoltaic cells, and was number one in their production as recently as 1998, but has now dropped to fifth behind Japan, China, Germany, and Taiwan. Of the world's 10 largest wind turbine makers, only one (General Electric) is American. Over time, the industries of the future inexorably become the industries of the present, so this is a formula for automatic economic decline. Case in point: nanotechnology is probably the first major new industry in a century in which the U.S. is not the undisputed world leader. America's increasingly patchy technological base also renders it vulnerable to foreign suppliers of "key" or "chokepoint" technologies. These, though obscure and of small dollar value in themselves, are technologies without which major other technologies cannot function. For example, China recently restricted export of the rare-earth minerals required to make advanced magnets for everything from headphones to electric cars. Another form this problem takes is the refusal of oligopoly suppliers to sell their best technology to American companies as quickly as they make it available to their own corporate partners. It doesn't take much imagination to see how foreign industrial policy could turn this into a potent competitive weapon against American industry. For another example, Japan now supplies over 70 percent of the world's nickel-metal hydride batteries and 60-70 percent of the world's lithium-ion batteries. This will give Japan a key advantage in electric cars. The Obama administration shows no awareness of any of this, despite scratching a hole in its head over why job creation has stalled. (Hint: it hasn't stalled in the nations, from China to Germany, running trade surpluses with us in manufactured goods.) It is not yet too late to reverse these dynamics, but we are definitely running out of time. So the sooner we start questioning the sacred myth of free trade, which is largely responsible for this mess, the better.
|
Fletcher 11 (Ian, Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to fixing America’s trade policies and comprising representatives from business, agriculture, and labor. He was previously Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, a Washington think tank founded in 1933 and before that, an economist in private practice serving mainly hedge funds and private equity firms. Educated at Columbia University and the University of Chicago, “American Manufacturing Slowly Rotting Away: How Industries Die,” The Huffington Post, February 20, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/american-manufacturing-sl_b_825733.html //EH)
|
America's manufacturing sector is actually in very deep trouble It is not just layoffs and crumbling buildings; industries sicken and die in complicated ways One important example of this is the decline of the once-supreme American semiconductor industry, visible in declining plant investment relative to the rest of the world. In 2009, the whole of North America received only 21% of the world's investment in semiconductor capital equipment, compared to 64% going to China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. The U.S. now has virtually no position in photolithographic steppers America's lack of a position in steppers means that close collaboration between the makers of these machines and the companies that use them is no longer easy in the U.S. American companies had 90% of the world market in 1980, but have less than 10% today. The decay of the related printed circuit board (PCB) industry tells a similar tale. The state of this industry has gone further downhill from what seems to be eons ago in 2005 The bare printed circuit industry is extremely sick in North America. Many equipment manufacturers have disappeared or are a shallow shell of their former selves What is basically left in the United States are very fragile manufacturers The majority of the remaining manufacturers should be called 'shops.' They are owner operated and employ themselves. They are small. They barely survive. They cannot invest. Most offer only small lot, quick-turn delivery. There is very little R&D, if any at all. They can't afford equipment. They are stale. The larger companies simply get into deeper debt loads. The profits aren't there to reinvest. Talent is no longer attracted to a dying industry and the remaining manufacturers have cut all incentive Imaging materials, specialty chemicals, metal finishing chemistry, film and capital equipment have disappeared from the United States All over America, other industries are quietly falling apart in similar ways. Losing positions in key technologies means that whatever brilliant innovations Americans may dream up in small start-up companies in the future, large-scale commercialization of those innovations will increasingly take place abroad A similar fate befell Great Britain For example, the U.S. invented photovoltaic cells, and was number one in their production as recently as 1998, but has now dropped to fifth behind Japan, China, Germany, and Taiwan Of the world's 10 largest wind turbine makers, only one (General Electric) is American. Over time, the industries of the future inexorably become the industries of the present Case in point: nanotechnology is probably the first major new industry in a century in which the U.S. is not the undisputed world leader America's increasingly patchy technological base also renders it vulnerable to foreign suppliers of "key" or "chokepoint" technologies For another example, Japan now supplies over 70 percent of the world's nickel-metal hydride batteries and 60-70 percent of the world's lithium-ion batteries. This will give Japan a key advantage in electric cars. The Obama administration shows no awareness of any of this So the sooner we start questioning the sacred myth of free trade, which is largely responsible for this mess, the better.
|
Alt causes – semiconductors, PCB, Obama policies
| 8,058 | 48 | 3,257 | 1,260 | 7 | 514 | 0.005556 | 0.407937 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,749 |
MARCH 07, 2012 The manufacturing industry has been beleaguered by obstacles. Nearly every news outlet has covered the closing of factories, labor disputes between companies and their employees or reductions in force due to the shift of labor off-shore. The reputation of the industry has been marred by low wages and less than desirable working conditions, in addition to quality-control problems. But, according to Paul Golden, founder and managing partner of Schilling Ventures, LLC., the biggest obstacle facing the manufacturing sector today is the lack of skilled training. Schilling Ventures builds market-leading industrial companies through strategic counsel on lean operations. Employers are struggling to find individuals who are skilled and mechanically adept. “Workers don’t know enough trade skills. This is compounded by many school districts failing at the basics of education for individuals headed to the shop floor,” Golden says. The lack of skilled laborers, he says, hinders productivity, creating a disadvantage against off-shore competitors. Additionally, many companies struggle to find employees with strong work ethics, instead finding those who opt for lower pay in exchange for less quality work. “China and India can compensate for lack of skills by adding labor, as wages are comparatively low,” Golden says. However, in the U.S., manufacturers must rely on their employees to improve productivity and achieve higher revenues. And, in an already over-worked sector, this may be hard to achieve. “Without strong skills, shop floor workers won’t drive those benefits,” he adds. Adding to the problem is the lack of quality engineers joining the manufacturing sector. According to Golden, many engineers are looking towards Web and software firms, leaving the industry hurting for creative talent for product development efforts. In addition, manufacturing is no longer viewed as “the” place to go for young, well-educated professionals. “Software, Wall Street and consulting have become the in places to be,” Golden says. “Without innovation, price becomes the competitive basis, and U.S. cost structures can’t match those from off-shore without exceptional productivity.” The obstacles addressed by Golden are not without solutions. The industry needs to recreate a positive image of manufacturing that once enticed the brightest professionals to the sector. “We need to make manufacturing ‘in’ again, highlighting the fortunes created and the valuable contribution made from manufacturing so that we can attract our best and brightest.” He believes this can be done by creating a “Do it for America” type ethos which will help attract students to the engineering and science fields. In addition, school districts must ramp up their vocational training programs. Although he has seen more specific training programs through partnerships between manufacturers and trade schools, Golden believes this is an effective “band-aid to the fundamental educational problems in the U.S.” He suggests a program similar to Germany’s apprentice and trade education track that cultivates students interesting in joining the manufacturing sector. “We should be able to create a U.S. version that promotes the pride of a trade skill, opportunity to earn a great living and the ability to parlay that trade into a business ownership.” Manufacturing and trade skills were once regarded as a sure route to the American dream. But as society evolves, perceptions change and industries that were considered a viable route to success must now take steps to transform public perception and align reputations with the opportunities that still exist.
|
Stringfellow 12 (Angela, a PR and MarComm Consultant and Social Media Strategist offering full-circle marketing solutions to businesses., “Challenges Facing Today's Manufacturing Industry,” March 7th, 2012, Open Forum, https://www.openforum.com/articles/challenges-facing-todays-manufacturing-industry/ //EH)
|
The manufacturing industry has been beleaguered by obstacles closing of factories, labor disputes between companies and their employees or reductions in force due to the shift of labor off-shore The reputation of the industry has been marred by low wages and less than desirable working conditions, But, according to Paul Golden the biggest obstacle facing the manufacturing sector today is the lack of skilled training Employers are struggling to find individuals who are skilled and mechanically adept. The lack of skilled laborers, he says, hinders productivity, creating a disadvantage against off-shore competitors. Additionally, many companies struggle to find employees with strong work ethics, instead finding those who opt for lower pay in exchange for less quality work manufacturers must rely on their employees to improve productivity and achieve higher revenues. And, in an already over-worked sector, this may be hard to achieve Adding to the problem is the lack of quality engineers joining the manufacturing sector manufacturing is no longer viewed as “the” place to go for young, well-educated professionals. “Software, Wall Street and consulting have become the in places to be Without innovation, price becomes the competitive basis, and U.S. cost structures can’t match those from off-shore without exceptional productivity
|
Alt cause – skilled labor
| 3,653 | 25 | 1,343 | 551 | 5 | 201 | 0.009074 | 0.364791 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,750 |
Second, there are a variety of ways that policymakers can support manufacturing, of which reforming the corporate tax code is one piece of the puzzle. Manufacturers make their investment decisions based on a variety of factors, not only the level of taxation. The research is clear that any set of policies aimed at supporting U.S. manufacturing should include investments in education and training, infrastructure, basic and applied research and development, and improvements to basic data collection. To support manufacturing, I recommend that this Congress focus on a few key items: Pass comprehensive business tax reform that both eliminates loopholes and inefficient business tax expenditures without disadvantaging domestic manufacturing. Currently, loopholes allow companies to avoid paying U.S. taxes by artificially shifting their profits offshore. Closing these loopholes by adopting strong provisions to prevent base erosion and will promote job growth in the United States and insure businesses are both competitive and fairly taxed. Find a fiscally responsible way to make the research and experimentation, or R&E, tax credit permanent in order to boost and attract domestic investment in research and development, or R&D, from the private sector. Studies have shown that the R&E tax credit stimulates as much research and development investment as a direct subsidy and that the social returns on R&D are greater than returns for private investors who finance R&D. The Obama tax proposal finances the credit exclusively through business tax reform.¶ Introduce a minimum tax on foreign earnings to prevent production from going to tax havens overseas. This would also ease the tax code’s current bias towards foreign, as opposed to domestic, investment and level the playing field among competing businesses. I want to stress, however, that the level of taxation is only one piece of the puzzle and the statutory corporate tax rate is only one aspect of the corporate tax code and how it affects businesses. Supporting manufacturing requires a deeper policy commitment and while I will focus my time in my remarks specifically on tax policy, given the jurisdiction of this committee, there are also a variety of other ways that we can promote manufacturing and innovation in the United States—or least not disadvantage it relative to other industries—including: Improve infrastructure so that U.S. goods can be more easily transported and marketed at home and abroad. This will also make the U.S. more appealing to businesses and globally competitive. Implement the Obama administration’s proposal to start an $8 billion “Community College to Career Fund” to encourage collaboration and partnerships between community colleges and businesses in training our future workforce. Two million workers would learn skills vital to working in burgeoning industries like advanced manufacturing and heath care. A highly skilled workforce would also give the U.S. and its regional economies further advantages over its global competitors. Increase government investment in advanced manufacturing by 19 percent, to $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, as outlined by the current administration. Manufacturing workers receive better pay and benefits, while the manufacturing sector is the driving force behind innovation in our economy. Additional investments in this area will benefit workers, improve our standard of living, and strengthen our economy. Follow through on President Obama’s plan to establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. This network, comprised of up to 15 new manufacturing institutes, would facilitate and promote collaboration between companies and research universities, all with the aim of increasing and scaling up manufacturing production. Having a strong manufacturing industry in the United States should be at the top of our national economic agenda. Without a vibrant and innovative manufacturing base, we will not be a global leader for long. Moreover, as more of our energy future will rely on high-tech manufacturing, our economic competitiveness will be even more closely aligned with our ability to be an innovator and producer of manufactured goods. Further, this is an urgent national issue and one of those cases where success begets success. Economists have begun to study and show that the “industrial commons” matters for innovation and the extent to which we allow manufacturing processes to continue to go overseas, we only make it that much harder to regain our place as a global leader. As my colleagues Michael Ettlinger and Kate Gordon have put it, “the cross-fertilization and engagement of a community of experts in industry, academia, and government is vital to our nation’s economic competitiveness.”
|
Boushey 12 (Heather, Chief Economist at American Progress, where her research focuses on U.S. employment, social policy, and family economic well-being. She is also currently a visiting fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, “Tax Reform and the U.S. Manufacturing Sector Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means,” July 19th, 2012, Center for American Progress Action Fund, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/general/report/2012/07/19/11949/tax-reform-and-the-u-s-manufacturing-sector/ //EH)
|
Second, there are a variety of ways that policymakers can support manufacturing The research is clear that any set of policies aimed at supporting U.S. manufacturing should include investments in education and training, infrastructure, basic and applied research and development, and improvements to basic data collection Pass comprehensive business tax reform that both eliminates loopholes and inefficient business tax expenditures without disadvantaging domestic manufacturing Find a fiscally responsible way to make the research and experimentation, or R&E, tax credit permanent in order to boost and attract domestic investment in research and development, or R&D, from the private sector . Introduce a minimum tax on foreign earnings to prevent production from going to tax havens overseas. This would also ease the tax code’s current bias towards foreign, as opposed to domestic, investment and level the playing field among competing businesses Implement the Obama administration’s proposal to start an $8 billion “Community College to Career Fund” to encourage collaboration and partnerships between community colleges and businesses in training our future workforce Increase government investment in advanced manufacturing by 19 percent, to $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, as outlined by the current administration Follow through on President Obama’s plan to establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. This network, comprised of up to 15 new manufacturing institutes, would facilitate and promote collaboration between companies and research universities
|
Aff may be necessary to bolster the manufacturing sector, but it is not sufficient to stave off collapse
| 4,765 | 104 | 1,582 | 725 | 18 | 225 | 0.024828 | 0.310345 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,751 |
It doesn’t make sense for America to try to enlarge manufacturing as a portion of the economy. Even if the U.S. were to seal its borders and bar any manufactured goods from coming in from abroad–something I don’t recommend–we’d still be losing manufacturing jobs. That’s mainly because of technology.When we think of manufacturing jobs, we tend to imagine old-time assembly lines populated by millions of blue-collar workers who had well-paying jobs with good benefits. But that picture no longer describes most manufacturing. I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years this factory won’t have a single employee on site, except for an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades the robots.Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they’re also becoming far more efficient at it. They’ve shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don’t need as many manufacturing workers as before.¶ Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in twenty large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002–before the asset bubble and subsequent bust–twenty-two million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The United States wasn’t even the biggest loser. We lost about 11% of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16% of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20% decline, and China had a 15% drop.¶ What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity. As productivity rises, employment falls because fewer people are needed. In this, manufacturing is following the same trend as agriculture. A century ago, almost 30% of adult Americans worked on a farm. Nowadays, fewer than 5% do. That doesn’t mean the U.S. failed at agriculture. Quite the opposite. American agriculture is a huge success story. America can generate far larger crops than a century ago with far fewer people. New technologies, more efficient machines, new methods of fertilizing, better systems of crop rotation, and efficiencies of large scale have all made farming much more productive. Manufacturing is analogous. In America and elsewhere around the world, it’s a success. Since 1995, even as manufacturing employment has dropped around the world, global industrial output has risen more than 30%.We should stop pining after the days when millions of Americans stood along assembly lines and continuously bolted, fit, soldered or clamped what went by. Those days are over. And stop blaming poor nations whose workers get very low wages. Of course their wages are low; these nations are poor. They can become more prosperous only by exporting to rich nations. When America blocks their exports by erecting tariffs and subsidizing our domestic industries, we prevent them from doing better. Helping poorer nations become more prosperous is not only in the interest of humanity but also wise because it lessens global instability.Want to blame something? Blame new knowledge. Knowledge created the electronic gadgets and software that can now do almost any routine task. This goes well beyond the factory floor. America also used to have lots of elevator operators, telephone operators, bank tellers and service-station attendants. Remember? Most have been replaced by technology. Supermarket check-out clerks are being replaced by automatic scanners. The Internet has taken over the routine tasks of travel agents, real estate brokers, stock brokers and even accountants. With digitization and high-speed data networks a lot of back office work can now be done more cheaply abroad.
|
Reich 09 (Robert B., former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is Supercapitalism, “Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back,” May 28th, 2009, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/28/robert-reich-manufacturing-business-economy.html //EH)
|
Even if the U.S. were to seal its borders and bar any manufactured goods from coming in from abroad we’d still be losing manufacturing jobs. That’s mainly because of technology Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they’re also becoming far more efficient at it. They’ve shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don’t need as many manufacturing workers as before. Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in twenty large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002 twenty-two million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The United States wasn’t even the biggest loser. We lost about 11% of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16% of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20% decline, and China had a 15% drop. What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity In this, manufacturing is following the same trend as agriculture. A century ago, almost 30% of adult Americans worked on a farm. Nowadays, fewer than 5% do. That doesn’t mean the U.S. failed at agriculture. Quite the opposite. American agriculture is a huge success story. America can generate far larger crops than a century ago with far fewer people. New technologies, more efficient machines, new methods of fertilizing, better systems of crop rotation, and efficiencies of large scale have all made farming much more productive. Manufacturing is analogous. In America and elsewhere around the world, it’s a success. And stop blaming poor nations whose workers get very low wages. Of course their wages are low; these nations are poor Want to blame something? Blame new knowledge. Knowledge created the electronic gadgets and software that can now do almost any routine task.
|
Manufacturing decline is inevitable – agriculture and technology
| 3,867 | 64 | 1,935 | 604 | 8 | 311 | 0.013245 | 0.514901 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,752 |
Any job that’s even slightly routine is disappearing from the U.S. But this doesn’t mean we are left with fewer jobs. It means only that we have fewer routine jobs, including traditional manufacturing. When the U.S. economy gets back on track, many routine jobs won’t be returning–but new jobs will take their place. A quarter of all Americans now work in jobs that weren’t listed in the Census Bureau’s occupation codes in 1967. Technophobes, neo-Luddites and anti-globalists be warned: You’re on the wrong side of history. You see only the loss of old jobs. You’re overlooking all the new ones.The reason they’re so easy to overlook is that so much of the new value added is invisible. A growing percent of every consumer dollar goes to people who analyze, manipulate, innovate and create. These people are responsible for research and development, design and engineering. Or for high-level sales, marketing and advertising. They’re composers, writers and producers. They’re lawyers, journalists, doctors and management consultants. I call this “symbolic analytic” work because most of it has to do with analyzing, manipulating and communicating through numbers, shapes, words, ideas.Symbolic-analytic work can’t be directly touched or held in your hands, as goods that come out of factories can be. In fact, many of these tasks are officially classified as services rather than manufacturing. Yet almost whatever consumers buy these days, they’re paying more for these sorts of tasks than for the physical material or its assemblage. On the back of every one of Apple’s iPods is the notice “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” You can bet iPod’s design garners a bigger share of the iPod’s purchase price than its assembly.Symbolic analysts have been hit by the current downturn, just as everyone else has. But over the long term, symbolic analysts will do just fine–as long as they stay away from job functions that are becoming routinized. They will continue to benefit from economic change. Computer technology gives them more tools for thinking, creating and communicating. The global market gives them more potential customers for their insights. To be sure, symbolic analysts are popping up all over the world. More than half of all Fortune 500 companies say they’re outsourcing some software development or expanding their own development centers outside the U.S. But apart from recessions, demand for symbolic analysts in the U.S. will continue to grow faster than the supply.The nations with the highest percentages of their working populations doing symbolic-analytic tasks will have the highest standard of living and be the most competitive internationally. America’s biggest challenge is to educate more of our people sufficiently to excel at them. We do remarkably well with the children from relatively affluent families. Our universities are the envy of the world. Entire regions specialize in one or another kind of symbolic analytic work–Los Angeles for music and film, Silicon Valley for software and the Internet, greater Boston for bio-medical engineering, and New York, until recently, for finance. But we’re in danger of losing ground because too many of our kids, especially those from lower-middle class and poor families, can’t get the education they need. They’re getting low-paid jobs in the local service economy–in retail stores, restaurant outlets, hotels and hospitals.Some argue that even if I’m correct about all this, the erosion of traditional manufacturing impedes the capacity of Americans to learn these symbolic-analytic tasks, because such learning depends on an intimate understanding of the assembly process. This may be true for a few of these tasks: Manufacturing engineers surely need to know manufacturing inside out, and some design engineers need that knowledge as well. But most symbolic analysts do not. Whatever they need to learn about manufacturing assembly can usually be discovered on line.
|
Reich 09 (Robert B., former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is Supercapitalism, “Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back,” May 28th, 2009, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/28/robert-reich-manufacturing-business-economy.html //EH)
|
Any job that’s even slightly routine is disappearing from the U.S. But this doesn’t mean we are left with fewer jobs. It means only that we have fewer routine jobs, including traditional manufacturing A growing percent of every consumer dollar goes to people who analyze, manipulate, innovate and create. These people are responsible for research and development, design and engineering. I call this “symbolic analytic” work because most of it has to do with analyzing, manipulating and communicating through numbers, shapes, words, ideas. Symbolic analysts have been hit by the current downturn, just as everyone else has. But over the long term, symbolic analysts will do just fine–as long as they stay away from job functions that are becoming routinized But apart from recessions, demand for symbolic analysts in the U.S. will continue to grow faster than the supply America’s biggest challenge is to educate more of our people sufficiently to excel at them But we’re in danger of losing ground because too many of our kids, especially those from lower-middle class and poor families, can’t get the education they need. They’re getting low-paid jobs in the local service economy–in retail stores, restaurant outlets, hotels and hospitals Whatever they need to learn about manufacturing assembly can usually be discovered on line
|
Manufacturing not key to economy – symbolic analysts fill in for job loss
| 3,969 | 73 | 1,334 | 621 | 13 | 211 | 0.020934 | 0.339775 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,753 |
Since the election, there have been hints that we could be entering a period with some actual productive, bipartisan dealmaking, most explicitly on immigration reform. But the Republican reaction to Obama’s expected proposals on infrastructure in Tuesday’s State of the Union address may be a better indicator of whether we are in for a year of real legislative give-and-take—or a return of the ugly politics of the last several years.
|
Irwin 13 — Neil Irwin, Washington Post columnist and the economics editor of Wonkblog, The Post’s site for policy news and analysis (Neil Irwin, Washington Post: Wonkblog, 02-11-2013, “Is Congress really going to miss its free lunch on infrastructure?”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/11/is-congress-really-going-to-miss-its-free-lunch-on-infrastructure/, Accessed 08-01-2013 | AK)
|
Since the election, there have been hints that we could be entering a period with productive, bipartisan dealmaking, most explicitly on immigration reform the Republican reaction to Obama’s proposals on infrastructure may be a better indicator of whether we are in for real legislative give-and-take or a return of the ugly politics of the last several years
|
The plan uniquely poisons the well on immigration reform — ensures GOP backlash over spending, and assumes their link turns
| 435 | 124 | 358 | 70 | 20 | 57 | 0.285714 | 0.814286 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,754 |
In 2011, the U.S. and Mexican governments agreed to revamp border infrastructure in the Tijuana/San Diego area to reduce waiting times to a maximum of 30 minutes. In October last year Mexico opened its new border station with 22 inspection lanes, an additional 16 from before. On the U.S. side, the plan was to roughly triple the number of car lanes and double the number of inspection posts for pedestrians. But the project has fallen prey to the economic crisis and the U.S. budget sequester, and Customs and Border Protection — a subset of the Department of Homeland Security — has delayed any construction. Although President Barack Obama included in his budget proposal for FY 2014 some $226 million dollars for the border crossings, the allocation is still under discussion in Congress.
|
Puig 13 — columnist for the Mexican newspaper Milenio and the anchor of the television show En 15 (Carlos Puig, International Herald Tribune, 06-05-2013, “Toeing the Line”, http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/toeing-the-line/?_r=0, Accessed 07-31-2013 | AK)
|
the U.S. and Mexican governments agreed to revamp border infrastructure On the U.S. side, the plan was to triple the number of car lanes and double the number of inspection posts for pedestrians the project has fallen prey to the economic crisis and the sequester Customs and Border Protection has delayed any construction Although Obama included in his budget proposal $226 million dollars for the border crossings, the allocation is under discussion in Congress
|
Border infrastructure investments are subject to congressional backlash and tied to Obama
| 792 | 89 | 463 | 132 | 12 | 74 | 0.090909 | 0.560606 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,755 |
Funding to improve the world’s busiest land border crossing made it into President Barack Obama’s budget but that doesn’t mean the project will shorten lines at the San Ysidro port anytime soon.
|
Halverstadt 13 — Lisa Halverstadt, reporter at Voice of San Diego (Lisa Halverstadt, Voice of San Diego, 04-25-2013, “Waiting on Congress to Ease Border Waits”, http://voiceofsandiego.org/2013/04/25/waiting-on-congress-to-ease-border-waits/, Accessed 08-01-2013 | AK)
|
Funding to improve border crossing made it into Obama’s budget but that doesn’t mean the project will shorten lines anytime soon
|
The plan drains PC and no link turns — deficit concerns and gridlock neutralize support
| 194 | 87 | 128 | 32 | 15 | 21 | 0.46875 | 0.65625 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,756 |
Establishing effective cross-border policies is not easy. While nations can readily agree to conserve migrating species in their territories, as when Mexico signed on to the United States' Migratory Bird Treaty Act to protect migrating birds half a century ago, protecting adjacent prime natural areas proves much more difficult. Designed to stop humans from freely crossing, borders also stop other species. Since 9/11, the U.S.-Mexican border has been further bolstered by both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS, which was formerly divided into the customs, border patrol, and immigration agencies) and the still somewhat-secret Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6, a multi-service command charged with providing counter-drug-trafficking support). These agencies' efforts and physical infrastructure have done significant damage to wildlife habitats. Their use of sensor fields, roads, and triple fences up to 50 meters deep create erosion and dust. The physical presence of vehicular patrols, all-night artificial lighting, noise, dragging of screens to clear a slate that makes footprints visible, and the clearing of brush also degrade sensitive habitat as homeland security forces seek view and access points. Along the San Diego segment, a proposal to install triple fencing now pits the federal government's ambitions to secure borders against the state and local jurisdiction over environmental issues. "The project would cut a 150-foot swath across a habitat that is home to some of the state's rarest plants and at least three endangered wildlife species," writes California environmental journalist Terry Rodgers.
|
WorldWatch Institute No Date (“Biodiversity on the U.S.-Mexican Border,” Conservation Biology in the U.S.-Mexican Border Region, Atleast in the 21st century, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/567 //EH)
|
Establishing effective cross-border policies is not easy protecting adjacent prime natural areas proves much more difficult Designed to stop humans from freely crossing, borders also stop other species. These agencies' efforts and physical infrastructure have done significant damage to wildlife habitats. Their use of sensor fields, roads, and triple fences up to 50 meters deep create erosion and dust. The physical presence of vehicular patrols, all-night artificial lighting, noise, dragging of screens to clear a slate that makes footprints visible, and the clearing of brush also degrade sensitive habitat as homeland security forces seek view and access points project would cut a 150-foot swath across a habitat that is home to some of the state's rarest plants and at least three endangered wildlife species
|
Border infrastructure wrecks endangered species’ habitats
| 1,624 | 57 | 816 | 239 | 6 | 124 | 0.025105 | 0.518828 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,757 |
This article explores the way in which the U.S. economy has faced the crisis of the Fordist stage of capitalism since the 1970s by focusing on a cheap labor strategy to restore profitability. By endorsing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), U.S. officials ensured access to an abundant supply of labor south of the border. For their part, Mexico’s political technocrats placed their bet for economic growth on the comparative advantage of cheap labor. This has been a losing bet for the workers of both countries: Neoliberalism and Mexico’s integration into the North American economy— without free labor mobility—have had a detrimental impact, particularly on Mexico. The counterpart of its loss of food self-sufficiency by growing dependency on U.S.-grains imports has been the loss of labor sovereignty. Defined as the ability of a nation to generate employment with livable wages for the vast majority of the population, labor sovereignty has been a casualty of Mexico’s economic integration with its northern neighbors. The most visible result of this loss has been substantially increased out-migration rates, with vast numbers of displaced Mexican workers flowing into the United States in search for work, most often unauthorized or undocumented. More specifically, this article explores the relation between food self-sufficiency and labor sovereignty in the midst of Mexico’s integration to its northern neighbors, especially to the U.S. economy. It compares and contrasts food self-sufficiency in the three NAFTA countries around production for the domestic market, per-capita calorie consumption, and overall food trade. The main proposition is that food-self-sufficiency is a condition for a country to enjoy labor sovereignty, as defined above. Of the three NAFTA nations, Mexico is the least self-sufficient, and hence the one that expels the largest rate of migrants. Although Mexico’s exports of fruits and vegetables to the United States and Canada increased substantially since the late 1980s, this sector did not generate nearly enough employment to absorb bankrupted peasants. Therefore, Mexico has become dependent on the importation of basic-subsistence grains, which used to be produced by smallholder peasant farmers. Many peasants became redundant in the Mexican economy, and their only way out, literally, has been to migrate to the United States or Canada. Although most migrants to Canada (a small minority) enter that country as part of state-sponsored guest worker programs (Otero & Preibisch, 2010), the vast majority of migrants to the United States do so as undocumented or unauthorized workers.
|
Otero 11 (Gerardo, department of sociology and anthropology at Simon Fraser University, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Journal of Poverty, 15:384 – 402, October 17, 2011, “Neoliberal Globalization, NAFTA, and Migration: Mexico’s Loss of Food and Labor Sovereignty,” http://www.sfu.ca/~otero/docs/JoP-Otero-NAFTA-MIGRATION.pdf, alp)
|
the U.S. economy faced the crisis of Fordist capitalism by focusing on a cheap labor strategy to restore profitability. By endorsing North American Free Trade U.S. officials ensured access to an abundant supply of labor Mexico’s political technocrats placed their bet for economic growth on comparative advantage This has been a losing bet Neoliberalism and Mexico’s integration into the North American economy had a detrimental impact on Mexico. The loss of food self-sufficiency by growing dependency on U.S.- imports has been the loss of labor sovereignty. labor sovereignty has been a casualty of Mexico’s economic integration with its northern neighbors. The most visible result of this has been increased out-migration rates, with displaced Mexican workers flowing into the U S Of the three NAFTA nations, Mexico is the least self-sufficient Mexico has become dependent on the importation of basic-subsistence grains, which used to be produced by smallholder peasant farmers. peasants became redundant in the Mexican economy
|
Fordist capitalism disadvantages Mexican labor – ensures out-migration, makes the poorest segments of the population disposable, and makes economic collapse inevitable
| 2,631 | 167 | 1,025 | 401 | 21 | 156 | 0.052369 | 0.389027 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,758 |
An alternative policy conclusion could be as follows: if the dismal conditions in rural Mexico stand as the key causal factor that explains out-migration from “The Rock” (from Hellman’s subtitle), why not propose a North American policy of compensation and transfer, as existed in the European Union (EU)? In the EU, policies were geared to boost the lessdeveloped nations of Greece, Portugal, and Spain upward in economic development, so their workers would not inundate other more-developed countries’ labor markets. So, given how prevalent the anti-undocumentedmigrants sentiment is in the United States, why not suggest that the Mexican government itself could revise its all-out embrace of neoliberalism? Mexico (which now has the equivalent of about 20% of its electorate working in the United States) could move to reconstruct its countryside, so that its people will reach food self-sufficiency and labor sovereignty again, as before 1986. This could save hundreds of thousands of Mexicans from engaging the perilous journey north and help reconstruct their crumbling rural communities. For sure, this will also involve a considerable push up for wages in the United States, and that too might help alleviate the huge income disparities that have appeared since the 1970s in that country. Other authors are highly critical about the consequences of guest worker programs on migrants, labeling their situation in receiving countries as one of virtual servitude (e.g., Franz, 2007; Vogel, 2007). The guest worker program as proposed in 2007 in the United States, Franz (2007) argued, will transform American citizenship from an institution based on civic membership to one based on residence rights and socioeconomic status. American citizenship, now a relatively accessible option, will become a closed-off status, unattainable for the majority of temporary workers. This will exacerbate Downloaded by [Mr Gerardo Otero] at 11:43 17 October 2011 Migration Seen from Sending Countries There are three main positions in assessing the impacts of migration on the development of sending countries: the neoclassical modernization-anddevelopment approach, that generally sees a positive impact; a socialdemocratic approach that sees problems and promises for sending countries; and a critical approach that sees primarily negative development impacts of migration. Studies in the first camp range from the micromotivations of migrants at the individual level, which in some cases include collective motivations to maximize “utility” for the migrant’s communities (e.g., Stark & Bloom, 1985). For his part, Edward Taylor (1999) attempted to infuse some optimism to migration and development studies, starting from the observation that, in 1995, international migrant remittances exceeded $70 billion worldwide. Taylor asked: “How have these remittances shaped development in migrant sending countries?” (p. 63) His assumption is that “migration and remittances should have a positive effect on local production” (p. 76). Presumably this would result from migrant households being able to overcome credit and risk constraints for engaging in production (p. 76). Later studies show, however, that development effects of remittances are negligible (Ellerman, 2005), given that most funds are spent on simple reproduction needs, rather than on expanded reproduction or capital accumulation (Cypher & Delgado-Wise, 2010). The social-democratic position also views some positive impacts from migration in sending countries, although disparities are clearly acknowledged (Portes, 2009, p. 19) and call for a joint development policy from sending and receiving countries to maximize positive development outcomes. Alejandro Portes (2009), for instance, seeks to “reconcile” the opposing views on the matter between those who argue that migration can be beneficial and those who believe that “migration is not only a symptom of underdevelopment, but a cause of it” (p. 6). From Portes’ perspective, however, migration can have positive development impacts, but he differentiated between cyclical and permanent migration. Overall, cyclical migration, of either manual labor or professional labor, is preferred over permanent migration for the development of the sending nation. Even with permanent migration, however, migrants become part of transnational communities, so these migrants can still contribute to their home nation. Transnationalism refers to the idea that new immigrants stay connected to their home communities through social organizations. Portes (2009) disputed the true effectiveness of “transnationalism” as he believed Downloaded by [Mr Gerardo Otero] at 11:43 17 October 2011. As a less than democratic nation, the fact that Mexico’s ruling class and government technocracy bought into neoliberalism had little to do with how broader sectors of the nation perceived it. Although the trends are dire, the massive protests by peasant groups and their supporters are sufficient to question whether neoliberal globalization and the new international division of labor in food will be successfully implemented in Mexico. I am not claiming that neoliberalism lacks detractors or produces no negative impacts in Canada and the United States, but it is the least-developed country that has the greatest negative repercussions from such restructuring, and consequently, it faces the most resistance from the ground. It is ultimately at the level of the nation-state that neoliberal regulation takes hold. Pedro Magaña Guerrero, a Mexican peasant whose organization is a member of Via Campesina, put it this way after praising militancy at the global level: “The consolidation of alternatives rests completely on what is happening at the local level, it depends on the development of organizations in their [peasants’] regions, in their countries” (cited by Desmarais, 2007, p. 135). Looking within nation-states will thus allow for studying how and whether their internal sociopolitical dynamics may become independent factors that could alter dominant trends in the world economy from the bottom up.
|
Otero 11 (Gerardo, department of sociology and anthropology at Simon Fraser University, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Journal of Poverty, 15:384 – 402, October 17, 2011, “Neoliberal Globalization, NAFTA, and Migration: Mexico’s Loss of Food and Labor Sovereignty,” http://www.sfu.ca/~otero/docs/JoP-Otero-NAFTA-MIGRATION.pdf, alp)
|
An alternative policy conclusion why not suggest that the Mexican government itself could revise its all-out embrace of neoliberalism? Mexico could move to reconstruct its countryside, so that its people will reach food self-sufficiency and labor sovereignty again This could save hundreds of thousands of Mexicans from engaging the perilous journey north and help reconstruct their crumbling unities. this will involve a considerable push in the United States, and that too might help alleviate the huge income disparities the fact that Mexico’s ruling class and government technocracy bought into neoliberalism had little to do with how broader sectors of the nation perceived it. the massive protests by peasant groups and their supporters are sufficient to question whether neoliberal globalization and the new international division of labor will be successfully implemented in Mexico. It is ultimately at the level of the nation-state that neoliberal regulation takes hold. Pedro Magaña Guerrero, a Mexican peasant whose organization is a member of Via Campesina, put it this way after praising militancy at the global level: “The consolidation of alternatives rests completely on what is happening at the local level, it depends on the development of organizations Looking within nation-states will allow for studying how internal sociopolitical dynamics may become independent factors that could alter dominant trends in the world economy from the bottom up.
|
Vote negative to endorse a world of Mexican labor sovereignty in the face of the neoliberal implications of North American trade
| 6,100 | 128 | 1,465 | 900 | 21 | 220 | 0.023333 | 0.244444 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,759 |
Mexico’s economic dilemma consists of the fact that on the one hand, the existing economic strategy is carrying the nation to higher and higher levels of disarticulation, stagnation, and migration. On the other hand, agents of change and ideas of change have been precluded from Mexico’s policy discourse. The current situation has been described as follows by two prominent analysts: “Mexico has lost its way"; “It appears as a nation with weak institutions, uncertain of its international identity: a sleeping giant that from time to time becomes agitated without being able to move”; “A country, one could say, with too much of a past, and too little future” (Castaneda and Aguilar Camin 2009, 34-35). In short, Mexico’s dilemma consists of a status quo that is intolerable. The nation exists under conditions determined by an institutional “lock-in” effect that serves to guarantee that fundamental structural change has increasingly been deemed unthinkable by the powers that be—and often by the underlying population. Mexico’s economic structure has, as its pivot point, the export of manufactured products—with auto and auto parts exports occupying pride of place. In the first half of 2009 Mexico’s exports and imports fell by 30 percent. Even more remarkable, auto and auto parts exports fell by 40 percent. Not surprisingly, then, the gross domestic product (GDP) fell at an annual rate of more than 10 percent in the second quarter of 2009-—with an expected total annual reduction of 6.6 percent according to the United Nations’ Latin American Commission. Mexico’s GDP at the close of 2009 was equal to that of 2005, but there were nearly five million more citizens. Net foreign direct investment (incoming direct investment minus outgoing direct investment)—a strategic economic indicator in the government's view—was only $3.8 billion US, a decline of 83 percent from 2008. To find statistics that would come close to matching the economic disaster Mexico confronted in 2009 it would be necessary to go back to the Great Depression years of the early 1930s. A very old and very tired cliché comes to mind in the current context: “Whenever Uncle Sam sneezes, Mexico gets pneumonia.” Tired as it is, and as tired as we are of hearing it, it has never been truer in Mexico’s long history than it is today. Mexico hitched its star to the United States in the course of the 1980s. The knot was tied in what was thought to be an irreversible fashion by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into effect at the beginning of 1994. Since the 1980s, when the Mexican government, led by the highly organized peak business associations run by the conglomerate-owning economic elite, bet its all on an export-led model, Mexico's economic success has been overwhelmingly dependent upon the growth in the consumer market in the United States—which has absorbed 85 to 90 percent of Mexico’s exports in recent years. However, as James Galbraith has recently and perceptively written, there is “No Return to Normal" possible in the future of the U.S. economy (Galbraith 2009). U.S. consumers, as a group, are now forced to cut their discretionary consumption to the bone. The varieties of purchases of consumer durables, particularly auto and electronics related, can be deferred for months or years and drastically reduced overall. Here we find Mexico’s current dilemma: (1) falling incoming foreign direct investment (now reduced to defensive strategies designed to cut production costs in a shrinking market—rather than the exploding market of the 1990-2007 period), and (2) stagnant or falling sales of consumer goods geared to be exported to the U.S. market. To return to Alan Riding, Mexican policy makers have not mastered the dynamics of the U.S. market because they, like their U.S. counterparts when considering Mexico, have but the flimsiest of ideas as to how the political economy of the U.S. is constructed (and reconstructed). Having gone “down,” according to the neoclassical economic thought that guides the U .S.-trained economists who surround President Calderon, the U.S. economy will (automatically) return to an “equilibrium"—causing massive exports to once again move north across the Mexico-U.S. border. Such is the teaching of orthodox mainstream economics that has no real theory of economic crisis, let alone a historically conscious analysis of moments of structural change—such as the present one.
|
Cypher and Wise 11 (James M., and Raúl Delgado, research professor in the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, author of The Process of Economic Development and State and Capital in Mexico: Development Policy since 1940, AND PhD in social sciences from the University of Pennsylvania, recipient of the 1993 Maestro Jesus Silvia Herzog prize in economics, member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, member of the National System of Researchers, executive secretary of the International Migration and Development Network, director of the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, October 10, 2011, Mexico’s Economic Dilemma (The Developmental Failure of Neoliberalism), available online at http://www.kilibro.com/en/book/preview/147236/mexicos-economic-dilemma, alp)
|
Mexico’s economic dilemma consists of the fact that on the one hand, the existing economic strategy is carrying the nation to higher levels of disarticulation, stagnation, and migration. ideas of change have been precluded from Mexico’s policy discourse. “Mexico has lost its way"; “It appears as a nation with weak institutions, uncertain of its international identity with too much of a past, and too little future” Mexico’s dilemma consists of a status quo that is intolerable. The nation exists under conditions determined by an institutional “lock-in” effect that serves to guarantee that fundamental structural change has been deemed unthinkable Mexico’s economic structure has, as its pivot point, the export of manufactured products exports fell by 40 percent. the gross domestic product fell at an annual rate of more than 10 percent in 2009-—with an expected total annual reduction of 6.6 percent according to the United Nations’ Latin American Commission. Mexico’s GDP was equal to that of 2005 Net foreign direct investment a strategic economic indicator in the government's view—was only $3.8 billion a decline of 83 percent To find statistics that would come close to matching the economic disaster Mexico confronted in 2009 it would be necessary to go back to the Great Depression A very old and very tired cliché comes to mind “Whenever Uncle Sam sneezes, Mexico gets pneumonia.” it has never been truer in Mexico’s long history than it is today. NAFTA came into effect at the beginning of 1994. Mexico's economic success has been overwhelmingly dependent upon the growth in the consumer market in the U S Galbraith has recently and perceptively written, there is “No Return to Normal" possible in the future of the U.S. economy we find Mexico’s current dilemma: (1) falling incoming foreign direct investment (now reduced to defensive strategies designed to cut production costs in a shrinking market and (2) stagnant or falling sales of consumer goods geared to be exported to the U.S. market. Mexican policy makers have not mastered the dynamics of the U.S. market because they have but the flimsiest of ideas as to how the political economy of the U.S. is constructed Having gone “down,” according to the neoclassical economic thought that guides economists the economy will (automatically) return to an “equilibrium"—causing massive exports to move north across the Mexico-U.S. border. Such is the teaching of orthodox mainstream economics that has no theory of economic crisis, let alone a historically conscious analysis of moments of structural change
|
The way economists construct theories of US-Mexico cross-border economics forecloses the possibility of disaster in favor of an optimistic but false view of economic history – causes collapse and turns case
| 4,443 | 206 | 2,575 | 709 | 31 | 409 | 0.043724 | 0.576869 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,760 |
The maquilized sectors of the economy have since late 2006 been grouped under the acronym “IMMEX program” firms. That is, the maquila firms and those which we have termed the disguised maquila firms (who are highly dependent upon manufacture products exports but who are not operating within the technical confines of the maquila regime) are now both part of the “Manufacturing, Maquiladora and Export Services Industry Program,” or IMMEX. These firms accounted for 76 percent of all of Mexico ’s manufacturing exports in 2008 (CNIMME 2009, 5:5d).3 More broadly, they accounted for 60 percent of all exports in the same year, even in the face of record high prices for Mexico’s oil exports. Approximately 90 percent of the export production of the IMMEX firms (the maquilas and the disguised maquilas) was produced for export to the United States in 2007. More than 44 percent and as much as 60 percent of all formal manufacturing employment in Mexico in 2008 was generated through internationalized processing activities via the cheap labor—export model by the IMMEX firms (Capdevielle 2005, 568; CNIMME 2009, 5:5d).“ ' The IMMEX firms, the largest portion owned by U.S. capital transplants, succeeded in raising Mexico’ s share of total U.S. imports from 6.7 percent in 1993 to 10.3 percent in 2008-in spite of the recent surge in U.S. imports from China (De la Cruz, Koopman, Wang, and Wei 2009, 8). ~ IMMEX firms produced a trade surplus of $46.2 billion US in 2006, surpassing the petroleum sector’s surplus of $37.3 billion, even in the midst of the commodities boom. In 2000, the IMMEX surplus was more than three times greater than the petroleum surplus (CNIMME 2009, 6:5e; INEGI various years). While all of this has bolstered the profit margins of the transplant firms, the net result for Mexico is an economy that lacks continuity, autonomy, and dynamism. It is one where the productive apparatus has been dismantled and reassembled to fit the structural requirements of the U.S. economy, leaving Mexico in control of certain low-value-added resource-based activities and a range of other rentier pursuits in tourism, finance, and real estate. Instead of advancing its productive apparatus, Mexico is falling further behind (relatively) because in essence the labor export—led model is structurally designed to transfer Mexico’s economic surplus away from its potential positive usage. The process of subordinated integration fails to advance the productive apparatus of the economy through investments in expanded research, development, and technological applications and through public sector infrastructural investments designed to rapidly improve Mexico’s quality of education, public health, and autonomous industrial base. Symbiotically, the Mexican elite (in its bifurcated economic and political dimensions, as defined below) coexists with and facilitates the perceived structural dimensions of the restructuring process as delimited by U.S. economic interests. In this process, certain rentier benefits befall this elite, while it carefully maintains its option of engaging in devastating capital flight—or deploying the threat of capital flight—to preserve these benefits. In short, we analyze the social structure of distorted dependent accumulation built up in Mexico in the past thirty years. We offer a case study of Mexico’s socioeconomic system that comfortably fits the term “transnational dependent capitalism”—based on the exploitation and exportation of cheap labor (see note 2). Transnational dependent capitalism entails the disarticulation of the Mexican economy within a transnational process of rearticulation between U.S.-sited advanced production and engineering processes exported to Mexico, which then link to Mexican assembly, and finally the re-export of final manufactures to the U.S. consumer market. Under this system Mexico is dotted with enclaves—primarily and increasingly in the north and north central states—undertaking asymmetric production processes wherein the low-value-added activities of the internationalized production chain occur in Mexico. And, in the final analysis, the significant profits arising from these activities (via transfer prices or other mechanisms) are repatriated to, primarily, the U.S.-based firms that are the dominant participants in this new economic model.
|
Cypher and Wise 11 (James M., and Raúl Delgado, research professor in the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, author of The Process of Economic Development and State and Capital in Mexico: Development Policy since 1940, AND PhD in social sciences from the University of Pennsylvania, recipient of the 1993 Maestro Jesus Silvia Herzog prize in economics, member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, member of the National System of Researchers, executive secretary of the International Migration and Development Network, director of the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, October 10, 2011, Mexico’s Economic Dilemma (The Developmental Failure of Neoliberalism), available online at http://www.kilibro.com/en/book/preview/147236/mexicos-economic-dilemma, alp)
|
The maquilized sectors of the economy have been grouped under the acronym “IMMEX program” firms. These firms accounted for 76 percent of all of Mexico ’s manufacturing exports in 2008 they accounted for 60 percent of all exports in the same year, even in the face of record high prices for Mexico’s oil exports. 90 percent of the export production of the IMMEX firms was produced for export to the United States in 2007. More than 44 percent and as much as 60 percent of all formal manufacturing employment in Mexico was generated through internationalized processing activities via the cheap labor—export model While all of this has bolstered the profit margins of the transplant firms, the net result for Mexico is an economy that lacks continuity, autonomy, and dynamism. the productive apparatus has been dismantled and reassembled to fit the structural requirements of the U.S. economy, leaving Mexico in control of low-value resource-based activities Mexico is falling further behind because in essence the labor export—led model is structurally designed to transfer Mexico’s economic surplus away from positive usage. integration fails to advance the productive apparatus of the economy through investments in expanded research, development technological applications public infrastructural investments designed to improve Mexico’s quality of education, public health, and autonomous industrial base. the Mexican elite coexists with and facilitates the restructuring process as delimited by U.S. economic interests. Mexico’s socioeconomic system fits the term “transnational dependent capitalism”—based on the exploitation and exportation of cheap labor Transnational dependent capitalism entails the disarticulation of the Mexican economy within a process of rearticulation between U.S. production and engineering processes exported to Mexico Mexico is dotted with enclaves undertaking asymmetric production processes wherein the low-value-added activities of the internationalized production chain occur in Mexico. the significant profits arising from these activities are repatriated to U.S.-based firms that are the dominant participants in this new economic model.
|
The economic model of the affirmative is rooted in an exploitative theory of transnational dependence which marginalizes the population at the expense of elites – that’s the root cause of Mexican economic decline
| 4,334 | 212 | 2,176 | 648 | 33 | 312 | 0.050926 | 0.481481 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,761 |
The contrast between the predominantly luxury imports of Canada and the United States with those of Mexico is notable: there is no doubt that Mexico is far more food vulnerable than the other two NAFTA partners. Consequently, of the three NAFTA countries, only Mexico has seen food prices rise significantly during the global food crisis, starting in late 2006. Canada has actually experienced a 0.6% food deflation, likely caused by the appreciation of its currency by about 30% since 2002. In addition, “Canada’s prices may be kept low because the country is producing much of its own food—possibly too much,” according to Bank of Nova Scotia senior economist Adrianne Warren (Scoffield & Strauss, 2008, p. B1, B6). Due to reverse trends in its currency, which has been devalued significantly against other major currencies, price inflation in the United States was 4% in 2007 (Scoffield & Strauss, 2008, p. B1). For the most part, however, Canada is also substantially self-sufficient. As the World Bank’s president, Robert Zoellick, told reporters from Bloomberg BusinessWeek about the food-price crisis: “The [2010 food] price hike is already pushing millions of people into poverty and putting stress on the most vulnerable, who spend more than half of their income on food” (Pooley & Revizin, 2011, p. 8). According to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with Mexico being a “middle-income” country, its households spend close to 35% of their income on food. Still, any price increases have a much more serious impact than they do in either Canada or the United States, where households spend on average 11% to 12% of their budgets on food. I thus focus on how Mexico has fared in the NAFTA-defined food division of labor. Although Mexico unilaterally opened its borders for most products in the late 1980s in preparation for NAFTA, this agreement contained some selective protection and phase-out periods for various crops. Corn, beans, sugar, and milk were given the longest phase-out period of protection with 14 years, which ended in 2008. By 2003, most agricultural products became liberalized, contributing to stirring up a peasant protest movement (Bartra & Otero, 2009). Even the London-based conservative newsweekly The Economist (“Mexico’s Farmers,” 2002), an enthusiastic supporter of freemarket policies, and BusinessWeek’s correspondent in Mexico City (Smith, 2002), expressed their dismay over the Mexican government’s meager support for its agricultural sector. These articles highlighted the international context of widespread agricultural subsidies throughout the advanced capitalist countries. In the NAFTA countries, “[r]elative to the value of national agricultural production, budgetary expenditures on farm payments during 1999–2001 equaled 15 percent in the United States, 10 percent in Canada, and 7 percent in Mexico” (Zahniser, Young, & Wainio, 2005, p. 2). Agricultural trade liberalization in Mexico has caused a big shift to high value fruit and vegetable production for export over that of lower-value food grains for the domestic market; imports that have heavy subsidies for U.S. farmers. As a result of such new division of labor, by 2003, Mexico had become dependent on the United States for the importation of some of its most critical foodstuffs, including maize and meat, two of the leading agricultural imports. Significant amounts of corn were first imported from the United States in 1989, a tendency that continued to grow until 23% of Mexico’s corn supply was imported by 2007. Once completely liberalized, corn imports grew by 19 times in January 2007 over the same month of the previous year. It should be clarified that Mexico imports yellow corn, used to produce animal feed, high-fructose corn syrup, or ethanol; whereas it continues to be self-sufficient in white corn for food production. But though white and yellow corn should properly be considered two different products, the reality is that the usually lower import prices of yellow corn have also caused prices for white corn to fall for producers. Trade liberalization rendered Mexico highly vulnerable to price fluctuations instigated in other countries. A dramatic example of this is the corn crisis triggered in 2006, when then U.S. President George Bush introduced a subsidy to produce corn-based ethanol in an effort to reduce his country’s dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Whereas ethanol policy may well benefit U.S. and Canadian farmers, tortilla prices in Mexico suffered a 60% increase in early 2007 due to increased dependency on maize imports (Roig-Franzia 2007). Price increases were also seen in wheat and its derivative products (e.g., bread, pasta, etc.), as many wheat farmers abandoned this crop in favor of corn to tap on its higher price. By 2008, subsidies and bad weather in several grain-producing countries generated the highest food prices in decades. Reports in the news contained warnings of popular uprisings in about 40 nations around the world (e.g., “Amenaza alza de alimento,” 2008).
|
Otero 11 (Gerardo, department of sociology and anthropology at Simon Fraser University, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Journal of Poverty, 15:384 – 402, October 17, 2011, “Neoliberal Globalization, NAFTA, and Migration: Mexico’s Loss of Food and Labor Sovereignty,” http://www.sfu.ca/~otero/docs/JoP-Otero-NAFTA-MIGRATION.pdf, alp)
|
Mexico is far more food vulnerable than NAFTA partners. of the three NAFTA countries, only Mexico has seen food prices rise significantly “The price hike is pushing millions of people into poverty and putting stress on the most vulnerable, who spend more than half of their income on food” According to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization with Mexico being a “middle-income” country, its households spend close to 35% of their income on food. The Economist an enthusiastic supporter of freemarket policies, and BusinessWeek’s correspondent in Mexico expressed their dismay over the Mexican government’s meager support for its agricultural sector. trade liberalization in Mexico caused a big shift to high value fruit and vegetable production for export over that of lower-value food grains for the domestic market; imports that have heavy subsidies for U.S. farmers. Mexico had become dependent on the U S for the importation of some of its most critical foodstuffs, including maize Significant amounts of corn were first imported from the United States in 1989, a tendency that continued to grow until 23% of Mexico’s supply was imported by 2007. ade liberalization rendered Mexico highly vulnerable to price fluctuations instigated in other countries. A dramatic example of this is the corn crisis in 2006, when Bush introduced a subsidy to produce corn-based ethanol in an effort to reduce his country’s dependency on Middle Eastern oil. tortilla prices in Mexico suffered a 60% increase due to increased dependency on maize imports By 2008, subsidies and bad weather in several grain-producing countries generated the highest food prices in decades. Reports warnings of popular uprisings in about 40 nations around the world
|
Cross-border trade ensures economic dependence founded on a theory of comparative advantage – makes food insecurity, famine, and instability inevitable – empirics
| 5,041 | 163 | 1,742 | 791 | 22 | 273 | 0.027813 | 0.345133 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,762 |
In addition, the book is based upon extensive primary or original field research, including numerous interviews with key policy makers, particularly at selected state-level secretariats of economic development. The fieldwork, carried out in the course of 2007 and 2008, also involved the implementation of a broad quantitative and qualitative survey instrument utilized to gain a current detailed understanding of the inner workings of several foreign-owned and (some) nationally owned manufacturing firms in the north central region of Mexico. Under the auspices of the government of the state of Zacatecas, through the office of the Secretaria de Planeacion y Desarrollo, one of us secured generous funding from the 2007 program “Proyectos para el Desarrollo Regional, Innovacion y Capital Humano” to pursue a study of the auto and auto parts industry in the north central region of Mexico. That study focused on the industrial/manufacturing economic development strategies of the adjoining states of Aguascalientes, Coahuila, San Luis Potosi, and Zacatecas. The field research also involved a number of interviews conducted with industry officials and academic specialists in Mexico City from late 2007 through midyear 2008. In the following chapters we generally do not make specific reference to this research. Rather, those research findings constituted vital background information that has allowed us to better ground, contextualize, and understand the nuances of Mexico’s industrial economy in tacit ways that we could never achieve through our own readings of data and analyses. The field research created new degrees of depth and perception as well as important and detailed information—some basic and scarcely available—that was particularly important in the formulation and writing of chapters 4 and 5 that focus on the export industrial base of Mexico. We have found that official statistical categories, tied as they are to their origins (wherein their methods of gathering and grouping sets of data served the goals of analyzing a single national economy and its distinct and separate structure of production), are severely limited when it comes to analyzing internationalized forms of production. Because of this we have often attempted to systematize information in new categories and/or concepts that serve to illustrate processes fundamental to the new internationalized system of production and the new division of power between what Raul Prebisch termed the “center” and the “periphery.”
|
Cypher and Wise 11 (James M., and Raúl Delgado, research professor in the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, author of The Process of Economic Development and State and Capital in Mexico: Development Policy since 1940, AND PhD in social sciences from the University of Pennsylvania, recipient of the 1993 Maestro Jesus Silvia Herzog prize in economics, member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, member of the National System of Researchers, executive secretary of the International Migration and Development Network, director of the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, October 10, 2011, Mexico’s Economic Dilemma (The Developmental Failure of Neoliberalism), available online at http://www.kilibro.com/en/book/preview/147236/mexicos-economic-dilemma, alp)
|
the book is based upon extensive primary or original field research, including numerous interviews with key policy makers The fieldwork involved the implementation of a broad quantitative and qualitative survey instrument utilized to gain a current detailed understanding of the inner workings of foreign-owned manufacturing firms in Mexico. field research involved a number of interviews conducted with industry officials and academic specialists in Mexico research findings constituted vital background information that allowed us to better ground, contextualize, and understand the nuances of Mexico’s industrial economy in tacit ways we could never achieve through our own readings of data and analyses. official statistical categories, tied as they are to their origins (wherein their methods of gathering and grouping sets of data served the goals of analyzing a single national economy and its structure of production), are severely limited when it comes to analyzing internationalized production. we attempted to systematize information in new categories that illustrate processes fundamental to the new internationalized system of production and the division of power between the “center” and the “periphery.”
|
The aff’s methodology is one-sided and restrictive – prefer our holistic approach to economic analysis – only way to include marginalized population in our economic calculus. The starting point of economic policy is important
| 2,508 | 225 | 1,218 | 376 | 34 | 174 | 0.090426 | 0.462766 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,763 |
Economic development in the United States from the F. D. Roosevelt’s era to the late 1960s was predicated on mass production articulated to mass consumption, with a primary focus on the domestic market. This stage of capitalist development in the United States has been referred to as “Fordism” (Aglietta 1979; Lipietz, 1987). It was predicated on a balance between mass production, on one hand, absorbed by mass consumption, on the other. Fordism consisted of a sort of economic pact between the state, unions, and corporations by which workers increased their productivity; but its fruits were shared to an important degree with workers. It involved the development of the “welfare state.” Women and minorities, however, were for the most part excluded from the benefits of Fordism, a time during which union membership reached a high of about 30% of the labor force. Balancing mass production with mass consumption involved low unemployment rates (below 4%) until the late 1960s, and gross national product growth rates of about 5% (Otero, 1996). The percentage of unionized workers in the United States dipped to 12% by 1994, and then below 6% by 2011. One of the few remaining unionized workers are state and municipal employees. Not only are these workers confronting huge cuts in their pay and benefits, they are also facing the stripping of rights to unionization. This drive is led by Republican governors in at least seven states, starting with Wisconsin in 2011 (“Wisconsin Governor Passes,” 2011). The crisis of Fordism in the late 1960s and early 1970s was expressed as a crisis of profitability, as a consequence of an excess productive capacity in relation to effective demand. The productivity of U.S. workers, compared to those in other countries like Germany and Japan, was growing at a slower pace. This productivity-growth differential was eventually expressed in growing and unsustainable trade deficits between the United States and countries like Japan during the 1980s. Hence U.S. transnational corporations sought to relocate their manufacturing plants to the less unionized U.S. South and, increasingly, to cheap-wage countries like Mexico. This flow of investments into manufacturing in Mexico, however, reproduced and expanded the capital-intensive technologies that were necessary to compete internationally in the emerging global economy. Linkages between these investments and the rest of the Mexican economy were scarce (Sklair, 1989). This means that locally sourced components were few, if any, as most raw materials were imported from the United States or elsewhere. Similarly, the only market for Mexico-produced manufactures by transnational corporations lied mostly in the United States. In the end, the main goal of restoring profitability for U.S. transnational corporations was based on the exploitation of cheap labor (Cypher & Delgado-Wise, 2010; Delgado-Wise & Cypher 2007). The internationalization of production led to what came to be known as “globalization.” Its peculiar character, it must be emphasized, was neoliberal: the attempt to give free rein to private investments in the market, while keeping the bearers of labor power—workers—rooted in their national states. An exception have been highly skilled workers, for whom special legal provisions were made to allow for a freer mobility, but not unrestrained. The process of globalization has signified the quadrupling of the world’s labor force since 1980. Reporting from a study by the World Bank, The Economist put it thus: “Weighting each country’s workforce by its ratio of exports to GDP, the IMF estimates that global labour supply has in effect risen fourfold since 1980 as China, India and once-communist countries have opened up” (“Smaller Shares,” 2007). Therefore, by the sheer strength of “market forces,” workers of the world have lost considerable bargaining power to capital. One macroeconomic result, even in the ten wealthiest countries, has been that the share of wages over gross domestic product (GDP) declined by several percentage points.
|
Otero 11 (Gerardo, department of sociology and anthropology at Simon Fraser University, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Journal of Poverty, 15:384 – 402, October 17, 2011, “Neoliberal Globalization, NAFTA, and Migration: Mexico’s Loss of Food and Labor Sovereignty,” http://www.sfu.ca/~otero/docs/JoP-Otero-NAFTA-MIGRATION.pdf, alp)
|
Economic development in the U S was predicated on mass production articulated to mass consumption This capitalist development has been referred to as “Fordism” It was predicated on a balance between mass production absorbed by mass consumption, Women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of Fordism, Balancing mass production with mass consumption involved low unemployment rates and g n p growth rates The percentage of unionized workers in the United States dipped to 12% by 1994, and below 6% by 2011. Not only are these workers confronting huge cuts in pay they are also facing the stripping of rights to unionization. U.S. transnational corporations sought to relocate their manufacturing plants to the less unionized U.S. South and, increasingly, to cheap-wage countries like Mexico. locally sourced components were few, if any, as most raw materials were imported from the U S the only market for Mexico-produced manufactures by transnational corporations lied in the U S the main goal of restoring profitability for U.S. transnational corporations was based on the exploitation of cheap labor The internationalization of production led to “globalization.” Its peculiar character was neoliberal: the attempt to give free rein to private investments while keeping the bearers of labor power—workers—rooted in their national states. by the sheer strength of “market forces,” workers of the world have lost considerable bargaining power to capital. share of wages over gross domestic product declined by several percentage points.
|
Comprehensive statistics go negative
| 4,058 | 37 | 1,542 | 628 | 4 | 235 | 0.006369 | 0.374204 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,764 |
Nor are these blind steps toward deepening Mexico’s immersion in the neoliberal morass merely urged by those who occupy the pinnacles of power in Mexico. “There is no better situation than an economic crisis” in which to undertake structural reforms, stated Ellis J. Juan, the director for Mexico of the Washington-based lnteramerican Development Bank (Saldafia and Becenil 2009, 8). Among the reforms urged by Mr. Juan we find mention of fiscal reforms (putting the IVA on food and medicine), the privatization of infrastructure (roads, water, etc.), the privatization of the public-sector energy firms, and the elimination of the legacy of the Mexican Revolution embedded in the pro-worker labor law. When the concept of the Washington Consensus was formed, the powerful lnteramerican Development Bank was, of course, a charter member. It is therefore of some importance that there seems to be deep unison between the agents of this consensus and the peak business organizations as to what Mexico should be engaging in to confront the current crisis. Until late August 2009, the CCE and many in President Calderon’s economic cabinet were urging the imposition of the 15 percent value-added tax (IVA) on all food and medicine. This was to be structural tax reform, thought to resolve the growing public sector deficit that had opened in the course of 2008-2009. Press accounts suggest that the number of poor in Mexico—always a somewhat contested number—has jumped by six million in the course of 2009. What then would the tax on food and medicine do to the vast majority of Mexicans who live on a meager income? How, by further undercutting the domestic market, would a sales tax on food and medicine cause the “model” to come back to life? These are the questions that common citizens ask themselves when they encounter, almost daily, the siren songs of the economic and political elite who firmly believe that Mexico’s dilemma can be overcome by imposing even greater degrees of neoliberal adjustments on Mexican society. And, as David Ibarra (secretary of the treasury from 1977 to 1982) has vigorously argued, Mexico’s structural fiscal problems have everything to do with Mexic0’s low (and frequently evaded) direct income tax, further reduced from 1997 onward. This theme, however, is never raised in policy-making circles for the simple reason that, according to Ibarra, “the power groups do not want to pay taxes” (Gonzalez Amador 2007, 23).
|
Cypher and Wise 11 (James M., and Raúl Delgado, research professor in the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, author of The Process of Economic Development and State and Capital in Mexico: Development Policy since 1940, AND PhD in social sciences from the University of Pennsylvania, recipient of the 1993 Maestro Jesus Silvia Herzog prize in economics, member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, member of the National System of Researchers, executive secretary of the International Migration and Development Network, director of the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, October 10, 2011, Mexico’s Economic Dilemma (The Developmental Failure of Neoliberalism), available online at http://www.kilibro.com/en/book/preview/147236/mexicos-economic-dilemma, alp)
|
Nor are blind steps toward deepening Mexico’s immersion in the neoliberal morass urged by those who occupy the pinnacles of power in Mexico. “There is no better situation than an economic crisis” in which to undertake structural reforms, stated Juan, the director for Mexico of the Washington-based lnteramerican Development Bank we find mention of fiscal reforms privatization and the elimination of the legacy of the Mexican Revolution embedded in the pro-worker labor law. there seems to be deep unison between agents of consensus and peak business organizations as to what Mexico should be engaging in to confront the current crisis. many in Calderon’s economic cabinet were urging the imposition of the 15 percent value-added tax on food and medicine. This was to be structural tax reform, thought to resolve the growing public deficit the number of poor in Mexico has jumped by six million in 2009. What would the tax on food and medicine do to the vast majority of Mexicans who live on a meager income? How, by undercutting the domestic market, would a x on food and medicine cause the “model” to come back to life? the siren songs of the economic and political elite believe that Mexico’s dilemma can be overcome by imposing even greater neoliberal adjustments power groups do not want to pay taxes
|
The rhetoric of economic crisis leads to exploitation under the guise of reformism – each move towards neoliberalism is made at the expense of the impoverished
| 2,450 | 159 | 1,306 | 396 | 26 | 218 | 0.065657 | 0.550505 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,765 |
Hence, with the participation of the Departments of Defense and State, the United States embarked on a series of high-level secret studies to determine what should be U.S. military posture in the face of these (and other) new contingencies that were viewed with great alarm by President Truman and the bipartisan political elite. Under the heading of National Security Document-68 (NSC-68), the Magna Carta of the Cold War era was gradually pounded out. Secret, but widely known for its conclusions until published in 1975, NSC-68 made the then novel argument that the U.S. economy had excess capacity and that high levels of military spending on a permanent basis would act as a stimulant to the economy—creating multiplier effects on employment and spending by absorbing the unemployed and the untapped production capabilities of U.S. industry. In its sheer breadth and comprehensiveness—both in terms of the creation and use of military power and in its focus on the economy—it is safe to argue that nothing like it has been produced since. Pale were the efforts of various groups in the 1990s, including the Project for a New American Century and the U.S. Government’s Commission on National Security/21st Century, to emulate NSC-68.4 NSC-68 distilled the views of the military-civilian policymaking elite that had recently acquired control of the state within the state—the National Security State. In the testy climate of 1947 dominated by the heady Truman Doctrine, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Department of Defense (DoD), the CIA, the National Security Agency, and other new national security entities gave form to a new constellation of governmental agencies, bureaus, and empowered personnel. The shell of the National Security State was there and NSC-68 provided the ideological and theoretical structure to fuel the military-industrial “iron triangle” which has merged the interests of manufacturing and high-tech industries, the political apparatus of the state, the civilian Pentagon leadership, and the professional military. In June 1950, the Korean War began and the race to pump up the military sector was on. Truman along with the political elite and the corporate leaders of the manufacturing sector became convinced, apparently, that the military Keynesian policy of high levels of government spending—even if occasionally financed through deficits—could boost the economy and keep it on an even keel. The Keynesian aspect of the policy related to the issue of full employment and rising wages. Within the new economic paradigm there was room for unions, with virtually all major military contractors and subcontractors operating with the cooperation of union workers in a high-wage, labor-intensive environment. Many contracts were cost-plus so rising wage payments were not an issue. Other contracts tended to allow for cost overruns or gold plating and the military services were indifferent to costs, since their only real focus was on the performance of weapons systems. Periodically boosting military spending turned out to be a convenient way to combat recessions and slowdowns and to sidestep the conservative ideology that counter-cyclical additions to the public debt would undermine the integrity of the economy. To be sure, increased military spending in the late 1960s—towards the end of what had then been the longest consecutive period of economic expansion—led to a so-called overheated economy rife with inflationary pressures. But, setting aside that period, military spending has played a significant role in all economic recoveries save that of the early 1990s when extremely high levels of recently accumulated deficits combined with the winding-down of the Cold War precluded the adoption of the military spending tactic. This is the long legacy of NSC-68. One part of that legacy, however, was jettisoned during the trying years of the 1970s: slowly but steadily the frontal onslaught on U.S. labor gained force and momentum as a principal means to reverse the then falling rate of profit. By 2006 the most successful of all unions, the United Auto Workers, was pushed into what seemed to be a death spiral. Military spending continues to play a major role, albeit a lesser one than it did in the 1950–73 period, but the link between military spending and job creation and wage enhancement for the U.S. working class has long been broken. Military contractors today generally pay scant attention to their unions and strive to relocate to right-to-work states and/or directly attack unions. At one time the unions were an important part of the iron triangle using their political weight to support the contracts that their employers sought. The climate at the base of the iron triangle has changed because the corporate elite and the state managers abandoned the Keynesian capital-labor accord in the 1970s. The new era of global-neoliberal militarism, following the debacle in Vietnam, began in the 1980s, not coincidentally with the onset of the Reagan/Thatcher era. In the United States, the objectives of global-neoliberal militarism are served by military spending, which boosts the profit rate of large corporations, creates new technologies such as the Internet, and contributes to policies that confront the onset of recessions. The objectives of lowering the unemployment rate, raising wages, and contributing to workers’ economic security are no longer a consideration, as they were in the days of military Keynesianism. Part of the neoliberal ideology is to destroy the state, except insofar as it defends the institutions of business ownership and the ability to project military power. But even military functions are to be privatized to whatever degree possible. Any conceivable activity in which the military sector engages is analyzed in terms of its potential to generate profit for the private sector. Hence, if potato peeling can be done at a profit, then this activity will be turned over to the private sector—assuming that such a change will not have a negative impact on the ability of military personnel to perform their functions. Even in the Keynesian era many operations and maintenance activities were spun-off to private contractors, but in the new era the search for possible privatizations has reached new heights. The logic of the privatization model is rather straightforward—for every billion dollars of expenditure on the military apparatus a larger percentage of these funds will circulate in the private sector where profit can be taken. Meals will be served, prisoners guarded, bases built, etc., but at a higher cost, and/or at lower wage and benefit levels, such that an impressive margin of profit can be extracted. Neoliberals believe, a priori, that all public sector activities are inefficient and that (thanks to the regulating role of the free market) private sector activities are a model of efficiency. Hence, get the military out of every sort of activity to the fullest degree possible. This model is now in place in Iraq, where private contractors (operating an unofficial army with over a hundred thousand employees) have apparently enjoyed unrestrained opportunities to amass quick profits. As a result, a new addition to the military-industrial complex—a vast constellation of contractors employing a shadow military with a vested interest in higher levels of military spending, particularly in the high-profit intervention/reconstruction business—has been created over the last fifteen years. Abroad, global-neoliberal militarism can be distinguished from military Keynesianism in terms of projects for the structural adjustment of defiant nations. According to the president’s 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States, nations remade by the United States will have borders open to trade and investment and will also conform to the neoliberal dictates of the IMF in terms of monetary and fiscal policies, labor policies (particularly flexibility programs that eliminate labor and obliterate any institutions of economic security and stability for workers), and tax policies (which shift the fiscal burden from capital to labor). An independent, democratic country cannot take control of its national resources and use them as it sees fit—such as nationalizing its transportation system or health system, or maintaining sovereign control over oil, gas, and minerals via nationally owned companies. Meanwhile, in the nation-building exercise in Iraq, Washington is constructing at least four superbases, along with ten enduring bases or contingency bases where massive amounts of military material can be forward-staged for quick use in the Middle East, South Central Asia, and North Africa. Currently, the United States operates as one of its four superbases the Balad Air Base, a fifteen-square-mile facility near Baghdad, where the level of air traffic is second only to London’s Heathrow airport. At the same time, the United States is building a $592 million embassy in Baghdad that is the biggest ever constructed worldwide.5 Thus, in Iraq as elsewhere, a “democratic” regime has been stripped of the essence of autonomy, is compelled to follow a rigid neoliberal economic model in domestic and international arenas, and, furthermore, yields to the permanent basing of U.S. military forces, while an overweening embassy duly keeps notes on the degree of conformity with the new model of global-neoliberal militarism. The Macroeconomics of Militarism During the era of military Keynesianism the Soviet “threat” was the pretext for runaway outlays on the military. Threat inflation kept the wheels of the military-industrial complex greased with profits for the private sector, jobs for union workers, and new gizmos of destruction for the military. After a brief period of disorientation when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989–91, threat inflation is once again the prime device facilitating runaway outlays on the military—this time with the military receiving the new gizmos the contractors happily provide, but without the same pressure to raise wages and create jobs for the U.S. working class. The director of MIT’s Security Studies Program, Harvey Saplosky, refers to the current bout of threat inflation as being driven by what he terms “You Never Know(ism)”: You Never Knowism is the guiding ethos of U.S. national security. National security planning documents are rife with it. They evoke a world of swirling uncertainty and rising complexity, a time of unprecedented change, where predictions are impossible but dangers great. They claim that the simple Soviet threat has been replaced by more various and irrational ones, which require capabilities-based planning—building military forces with no particular foe in mind. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the defense planning document drafted every four years to guide U.S. defense spending, is only the latest example. Following the National Security Strategy (2002), the National Military Strategy (2004), and the National Defense Strategy (2005), the Review, released in February [2006], states that the United States now faces a hostile mix of terrorists, failed states that we must order, insurgencies, rogue states with missiles, and large militaries like China’s. Like these prior strategy documents, the QDR does not bother to estimate how probable these threats are and decide to focus on one or another on that basis. It contends simply that “managing risks” compels us to prepare for all of them.6 Because of 9/11 the marketing of fear resonates with the U.S. public even more perhaps than did such attempts in the 1950s when it was not possible to point to any form of Soviet military intervention in U.S. territory. Yet, as the specialists in security studies at MIT maintain, in relative terms the widespread fear of terrorist attack has little basis in reality—while serving to drive military expenditures higher and higher: The dirty secret of American national security politics is that we are safe. Americans might be the most secure people in history. But we worry. We are told that our enemies may be organizing our destruction in pockets of disorder, which are growing. We are taught that the world is chaotic, awash in civil war and terrorism, which could strike us “any place, with virtually any weapon.” We hear that our satellites are ripe for attack, that pirates prey on our shipping, that Iran’s nuclear weapons portend disaster, and that China is a growing threat. At base, however, most arguments claiming America’s insecurity rely on implausible scenarios. The futures these arguments fear are not probable but possible. It is possibility that justifies the defenses they advocate.7
|
Cypher 07 (James Cypher, writer for the Monthly Review, research professor in the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, author of The Process of Economic Development and State and Capital in Mexico: Development Policy since 1940, June 2007, "From Military Keynesiasism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism," Monthly Review, monthlyreview.org/2007/06/01/from-military-keynesianism-to-global-neoliberal-militarism)
|
political elite made the then novel argument that the U.S. economy had excess capacity and that high levels of military spending on a permanent basis would act as a stimulant to the economy—creating multiplier effects on employment and spending by absorbing the unemployed and the untapped production capabilities of U.S. industry the military-industrial “iron triangle” which has merged the interests of industries, the political apparatus of the state and the professional military. The era of global-neoliberal militarism began the objectives of global-neoliberal militarism are served by military spending, which boosts the profit rate of large corporations Washington is constructing enduring bases where massive amounts of military material can be forward-staged the new model of global-neoliberal militarism. the Soviet “threat” was the pretext for runaway outlays on the military. Threat inflation kept the wheels of the military-industrial complex greased with profits threat inflation is once again the prime device facilitating runaway outlays on the military You Never Knowism is the guiding ethos of U.S. national security. National security planning documents are rife with it. They evoke a world of swirling uncertainty and rising complexity, a time of unprecedented change, where predictions are impossible but dangers great. They claim that the simple Soviet threat has been replaced by more various and irrational ones, which require capabilities-based planning—building military forces with no particular foe in mind. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the defense planning document states that the United States now faces a hostile mix of terrorists, failed states that we must order, insurgencies, rogue states with missiles, and large militaries like China’s. the QDR does not bother to estimate how probable these threats are widespread fear of terrorist attack has little basis in reality—while serving to drive military expenditures higher and higher: The dirty secret of American national security politics is that we are safe. Americans might be the most secure people in history. We are taught that the world is chaotic that Iran’s nuclear weapons portend disaster, and that China is a growing threat most arguments claiming America’s insecurity rely on implausible scenario . It is possibility that justifies the defenses they advocate.7
|
The aff’s call for a military industrial apparatus comes from a profit driven epistemology that expands neoliberal militarism and threat inflation
| 12,756 | 146 | 2,369 | 1,985 | 21 | 352 | 0.010579 | 0.17733 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,766 |
In short, even this brief description of the essence of industrial policy demonstrates that Mexico would have to orchestrate a paradigmatic shift to achieve a national project of accumulation in order to exit from the cul-de-sac that we have termed “Mexico’s dilemma.” A structural delinking (partial or complete) from the United States’ “national project of accumulation” the cheap-labor export model analyzed in this book that currently defines Mexico’s model—would be a prerequisite in the application of industrial policy. The nature and consequences of the absence of such a policy for national firms, and for endogenous development processes, will be examined in chapter 5.
|
Cypher and Wise 11 (James M., and Raúl Delgado, research professor in the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, author of The Process of Economic Development and State and Capital in Mexico: Development Policy since 1940, AND PhD in social sciences from the University of Pennsylvania, recipient of the 1993 Maestro Jesus Silvia Herzog prize in economics, member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, member of the National System of Researchers, executive secretary of the International Migration and Development Network, director of the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, October 10, 2011, Mexico’s Economic Dilemma (The Developmental Failure of Neoliberalism), available online at http://www.kilibro.com/en/book/preview/147236/mexicos-economic-dilemma, alp)
|
even this brief description of the essence of industrial policy demonstrates that Mexico would have to orchestrate a paradigmatic shift to exit from the cul-de-sac that we have termed “Mexico’s dilemma.” A structural delinking from the U S “national project of accumulation” the cheap-labor export model would be a prerequisite in the application of industrial policy.
|
The alternative is a prerequisite to examination of industrial policy
| 679 | 69 | 368 | 103 | 10 | 56 | 0.097087 | 0.543689 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,767 |
As one Mexican economist has noted, “All neoliberal economists are neoclassicals, but not all neoclassicals are neoliberals.” Neoliberalism can be summed up as an extreme perspective within the economics profession that proclaims a faith in the idea that economic institutions and individuals will achieve their maximum potential only under conditions where market forces are virtually unconstrained by any limits save those that establish and enforce property rights. Translating, this means a virtual absence of any social safety net, the private ownership of all resources and production facilities, the absence of regulations on corporations and labor markets, and, of course, the unconstrained movement of capital and all goods across borders. If all this seems familiarly close to what is understood as the Chicago School of economics (further analyzed in chapter 2) as propounded by Milton Friedman and associates, that is because we can trace the origins of neoliberalism to Friedman and his acolytes, who first instituted the economics of “freedom” by way of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile after the September 11, 1973, coup. Neoclassical and neoliberal economists are essentially ahistorical in their analyses—which is a polite way of noting that they are historical illiterates. Of course there are brilliant neoclassical economic historians practicing their craft. But, sadly, their work is generally pushed to the margin—to be opportunistically utilized in the event that their findings can be massaged to support some aspect of neoliberal dogma. And this leads to the all-important distinction between the best of the neoclassical school of thought (which dominates the economic profession in the United States) and the neoliberals (who have dominated to the point of exclusion the public policy arena in Mexico since President Carlos Salinas, 1998-2004, took power). Grudgingly, creative neoclassicals (such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman) have been awarded the Nobel Prize for their work, which demonstrates commonly encountered conditions wherein the free play of unregulated market forces yields suboptimal economic results. In short, most neoclassical economists recognize (and marshal the evidence to prove) that unregulated markets frequently “fail”—in the sense that they are suboptimal. This perspective is anathema in the higher circles of economic policy making in Mexico, where dogmatic faith in market fundamentalism is embraced in the best of times and even more so in the worst of times—such as today. Market fundamentalism, as applied in Mexico, suggests to Mexican policy makers that their role is to ensure that the public sector remains small and fiscally balanced, the money supply is under strict control, foreign currency reserves are large, and the exchange rate is relatively stable. It is assumed that, if these “fundamentals” are maintained, the economy will grow at or near its potential rate, productivity will be high, and all those really willing to work will find jobs. Unfortunately, under this neoliberal formula Mexico’s economy has performed weakly in the best of times—as detailed in chapter 2. More generally, as we show in this book, it has been marked by stagnation, astonishingly high levels of emigration, and an exploding “informal” economy where perhaps a majority of the economic population ekes out a precarious hand-to-mouth existence.
|
Cypher and Wise 11 (James M., and Raúl Delgado, research professor in the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, author of The Process of Economic Development and State and Capital in Mexico: Development Policy since 1940, AND PhD in social sciences from the University of Pennsylvania, recipient of the 1993 Maestro Jesus Silvia Herzog prize in economics, member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, member of the National System of Researchers, executive secretary of the International Migration and Development Network, director of the doctoral program in development studies at la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, October 10, 2011, Mexico’s Economic Dilemma (The Developmental Failure of Neoliberalism), available online at http://www.kilibro.com/en/book/preview/147236/mexicos-economic-dilemma, alp)
|
“All neoliberal economists are neoclassicals, but not all neoclassicals are neoliberals.” Neoliberalism proclaims a faith in the idea that economic institutions and individuals will achieve their maximum potential only under conditions where market forces are virtually unconstrained this means a virtual absence of any social safety net, private ownership of production the absence of regulations on corporations we can trace the origins of neoliberalism to Friedman and his acolytes, who instituted the economics of “freedom” by way of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile neoliberal economists are ahistorical in their analyses—which is a polite way of noting that they are historical illiterates. there are brilliant neoclassical economic historians practicing their craft. But, their work is pushed to the margin—to be opportunistically utilized in the event that their findings can be massaged to support some aspect of dogma. And this leads to the all-important distinction between the best of the neoclassical school of thought and the neoliberals (who have dominated to the point of exclusion the public policy arena in Mexico neoclassical economists recognize (and marshal the evidence to prove) that unregulated markets frequently “fail”—in the sense that they are suboptimal. in the higher circles of economic policy making in Mexico dogmatic faith in market fundamentalism is embraced in the best of times and even more so in the worst of times It is assumed that, if “fundamentals” are maintained, the economy will grow productivity will be high, and all those willing to work will find jobs. nder this neoliberal formula Mexico’s economy has performed weakly in the best of times it has been marked by stagnation and an exploding “informal” economy where a majority of the economic population ekes out a precarious hand-to-mouth existence.
|
Prefer context – their evidence is optimistic theory but doesn’t assume the way in which policy is implemented to justify dogma – our evidence is about Mexico and border economics
| 3,403 | 179 | 1,852 | 515 | 30 | 283 | 0.058252 | 0.549515 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,768 |
Many Office of Field Operations (OFO) officers have several years of experience, allowing them to instinctively identify suspicious anomalies in an individual or vehicle. Nonetheless, they can be even more effective when additional information about a particular shipment or person is made available ahead of time or even as the individual arrives at the POE. License plate readers, for example, provide OFO officers with a vehicles crossing history, allowing him or her to identify suspect patterns and to crosscheck an individual’s declarations with the electronic records. In the post-NAFTA and post-9/11 world, intelligence has become an increasingly vital tool for safe and efficient border management as both the volume of bilateral commerce and threat of attack by non-state actors have each grown. Voluntary trusted traveler and trusted shipper programs provide Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with intelligence needed to more accurately assess the risk presented by someone seeking entry to the United States(see box 1 on previous page for information on the main programs). Frequent crossers can enroll in these programs by providing CBP with additional documentation, undergoing background checks, and taking steps to increase supply chain security. In return, crossers are offered expedited processing at the borders, which saves them time and money and thereby incentivizes their participation in the programs. By speeding the passage of low-risk individuals and shipments, OFO officers are able to focus more time and energy on higher-risk or unknown traffic. That is, by making the proverbial haystack that officers must sift through smaller, they increase their chances of finding the needle. Trusted traveler and shipper programs are a win-win-win. They decrease wait times, minimize the need for additional staffing and lanes, and increase border security. While the programs have generally been successful, they also have a huge amount of untapped potential. The SENTRI trusted traveler program, for example, expedites the passage of 18 percent of all northbound traffic. This is a significantly larger percentage than in previous years, but since the majority of traffic is made up of frequent crossers that live in border communities, CBP might consider setting a goal as high as forty to fifty percent within the next several years. To reach such a lofty goal, CBP would need to work with Mexican local and federal authorities to extend the reach of dedicated lanes so that program members do not have to wait in traffic before reaching their express lane. The use of trusted traveler and shipper programs might also be increased through outreach (perhaps application fee discount coupons being handed to frequent crossers) and the expansion of the program to additional POEs. The FAST program for commercial trucks appears to need particular attention. After seeing significant growth since its implementation in 2002, enrollment has actually declined since 2008 (see Figure 5, on next page). The full causes of this decline should be studied and addressed given the potential value to security and the competitiveness of regional manufacturing that the FAST program represents. Since FAST lanes can only be used when FAST drivers are carrying goods from a CTPAT supplier, special attention must be paid to developing an incentive structure to encourage participation in both programs. Figure 5: Trusted Traveler and Shipper Programs Enrollment, 2004-2012 Source: Customs and Border Protection, DHS.9 Greater experimentation in the promotion and implementation of trusted traveler and shipper programs (SENTRI, CTPAT, FAST, and also the use of Ready Lanes for those with WHTI compliant documents) would be a useful tool in developing best practices for improving security while facilitating commerce. Staffing Levels at the Ports of Entry Since 9/11 and the increase in security at our land ports of entry with Mexico, one of the major points of contention between border communities, regional interest groups and Washington has concerned staffing levels and their effects on local economies. While the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents has more than doubled over the past decade, Office of Field Operations (blue-uniformed CBP Officers thatstaff the ports of entry) staffing has remained relatively stable (see Figure 6 below). In 2007, the U.S. Congress began to fund the vigilance of the areas between the POEs at a higher level than the POEs themselves. This is surprising given the increase in bilateraltrade,the significant increases in border wait times since 9/11, and evidence that appears to suggest that the POEs, rather than the areas between them, are a more likely crossing point for drugs and dangerous individuals(see the forthcoming State of the Border chapter on security for more on this last point). The U.S. Government Accountability Office has suggested that the levels of staffing and training for CBP Officers are each lacking.10 Border community interest groups often pointto the remarkable increase in U.S. Border Patrol staffing, infrastructure and implementation of technology and critique the relatively little innovation they see at the ports. In addition to the important discussion on staffing levels (Rep. Sylvester Reyes’ PORTS Act has called for 5,000 additional staff for the land ports of entry, for example), consideration is merited on the nature of these important positions. The difficulty of the job combined with the numerous hours of overtime make for a truly challenging work environment for these key federal employees who protect border communities and the nation while facilitatingU.S.Mexico trade. In response, and often as a supplement to the issue of staffing levels, some analysts have suggested that border security and economic competitiveness might be strengthened by efforts to improve job quality—and therefore retain talent—for CBPOfficer positions. 11 The expanded use of technology and the movement of some inspection and admittance operations to Mexico (customs preclearance) might also be steps in the creation of a 21st Century Border officer. Customs In much the same way as long and unpredictable wait times add costs to cross-border transactions, the significant documentation requirements faced by importers and exporters to take advantage of the tariff preferences granted by NAFTA actually can sometimes cut away at the very cost savings the agreement was meant to provide. Rules of origin stipulate that only products from the U.S., Canada or Mexico should get preferential treatment. Firms must therefore maintain detailed records regarding the source of their products, sometimes including their parts and materials. This paperwork burden can be particularly costly and act as a barrier to exporting forsmall and medium-sized businesses. In theory, the solution is a customs union (like the European Union) with common external tariffs charged to non-member countries. With no intraregional tariffs and no need to verify the origin of goods moving within the region, taking commercial goods across the U.S.-Mexico border would only require a basic security. In practice, however,this would be very difficult to achieve in North America due to the many trade agreements each country has negotiated and the industries each has sought to protect. A more appropriate approach for our region may be to take things product by product.12 For goods that already face similar external tariffs in each of the NAFTA countries, negotiations could be started to have tariffs lowered to the lowest of the three (trade agreements make it hard for countries to raise most tariffs). When a common external tariff is reached for a product, it could then be exempted from most customs requirements at the United States’ southern and northern borders. Other important efforts are underway to simplify the management of existing customs requirements, moving toward a process that allows the multiple customs forms to be filled out without repeating steps in one convenient online form. These systems are known as a “single window.” The U.S. has mostly implemented such a solution for imports but not exports, and Mexico has just launched its Ventanilla Unica, which needs ongoing development to become a true one-stop system for customs paperwork. Balancing the Dual Mission Border management changed significantly after 9/11, and CBP’s primary mission is to prevent terrorists and instruments of terror from entering the United States. This is obviously crucial to U.S. national security. Nonetheless, on a daily basis CBP must facilitate commercial traffic (also part of its mission) and disrupt the flow of unauthorized immigrants and smuggled goods. In the best of cases, CBP supervisors, agents, and officers find ways to balance the need to protect our nation’s security and economy. As some supervisors at the POEs already clearly do, the role of leadership in the context of CBP’s dual mission is to both seek out best practices and empower officers to experiment with creative ways to facilitate travel and commerce while protecting the security of the nation. Too often the primacy of the security mission is used as a justification for tolerating long wait times for trucks, cars, and pedestrians attempting to cross. Port of Entry Infrastructure One of the most obvious and often cited waysto reduce congestion at the POEs is to update and expand border crossing infrastructure, and credit is certainly due to U.S. government and border communities for significant recent advances. After a decade with no new ports of entry built, three new crossings were opened in 2010: Anzalduas, San Luís II, and Donna-Rio Bravo.13 In 2011, seven new lanes were opened on the World Trade Bridge, the most important crossing point for commercial traffic between the United States and Mexico. Significant expansions are also underway at San Ysidro, the most trafficked crossing for individuals, and at NogalesMariposa. Despite these important advances, much work remains to be done. Average U.S. land POEs are more than forty years old, with some over seventy years old.14 Customs and Border Protection believes that “federal appropriations have not kept pace with needs,” noting $6 billion dollars of investment are needed to “fully modernize” the land ports of entry along the United States southern and northern borders.15 Given the fact that POE improvements offer significant and tangible monetary benefits to border communities and trade-dependent industries, state, local and private entities are often willing to contribute funding to border infrastructure projects. Underthe current budgetary constraints, it makes sense for federal agencies to take full advantage of these alternative funding sources. Along the Texas-Mexico border, the majority of POEs are owned by the city or county in which they are located. This model for infrastructure investment could be expanded along other parts of the U.S.-Mexico border, but changes to current federal legislation appear to be necessary to allow CBP to “accept reimbursement from sources other than Congress.”16 As demonstrated above, additional staffing is and will be increasingly necessary as trade increases. With the active support of border stakeholders across the region, a proposal along these lines designed in collaboration with federal agencies could likely garner legislative support and could open significant opportunities for investment despite tough budgetary times.
|
Lee and Wilson 12 (Erik, Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies at ASU, and Christopher E., Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (“The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Mexico Institute, June 2012, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Trade_Economy_0.pdf)
|
License plate readers, for example, provide OFO officers with a vehicles crossing history, allowing him or her to identify suspect patterns and to crosscheck an individual’s declarations with the electronic records intelligence has become an increasingly vital tool for safe and efficient border management Voluntary trusted traveler and trusted shipper programs provide Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with intelligence needed to more accurately assess the risk presented by someone seeking entry to the United States crossers are offered expedited processing at the borders, which saves them time and money and thereby incentivizes their participation in the programs. By speeding the passage of low-risk individuals and shipments, OFO officers are able to focus more time and energy on higher-risk or unknown traffic. Trusted traveler and shipper programs are a win-win-win. They decrease wait times, minimize the need for additional staffing and lanes, and increase border security. programs have a huge amount of untapped potential The SENTRI trusted traveler program, for example, expedites the passage of 18 percent of all northbound traffic. To reach such a lofty goal, CBP would need to work with Mexican local and federal authorities to extend the reach of dedicated lanes so that program members do not have to wait in traffic before reaching their express lane. The FAST program for commercial trucks appears to need particular attention special attention must be paid to developing an incentive structure to encourage participation in both programs. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has suggested that the levels of staffing and training for CBP Officers are each lacking some analysts have suggested that border security and economic competitiveness might be strengthened by efforts to improve job quality significant documentation requirements can cut away at the very cost savings the agreement was meant to provide When a common external tariff is reached for a product, it could then be exempted from most customs requirements at the United States’ southern and northern borders. protect our nation’s security and economy. As some supervisors at the POEs already clearly do, the role of leadership in the context of CBP’s dual mission is to both seek out best practices and empower officers to experiment with creative ways to facilitate travel and commerce while protecting the security of the nation. the primacy of the security mission is used as a justification for tolerating long wait times for trucks, cars, attempting to cross additional staffing is and will be increasingly necessary as trade increases
|
The United States federal government should:
| 11,516 | 44 | 2,643 | 1,770 | 6 | 406 | 0.00339 | 0.229379 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,769 |
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico's President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto will seek to double security spending to around 2 percent of GDP to fight drug violence and organized crime while proposing new tactics to the United States, a top aide said on Tuesday.¶ Emilio Lozoya, touted as a possible pick for foreign minister, said Pena Nieto's administration would try to boost efforts to tackle money laundering and propose trans-border infrastructure projects to help create jobs, cut business costs and increase security.¶ Ads By Google¶ American exceptionalism:¶ Do the characteristics that made the US exceptional still apply?¶ www.aei.org/americanexceptionalism¶ Compare Medicare Plans¶ Medicare Advantage & Supp Plans. View All Plans & Prices Online.¶ www.MedicareSolutions.com¶ "Today Mexico is investing a bit less than 1 percent of gross domestic product (in security) which is low and clearly not enough to confront this problem," Lozoya told Reuters in an interview. "Investment on security needs to double at least."¶ He said U.S. financial aid, while welcome, was small in relation to Mexico's security spending, particularly "when the end consumer of narcotics is in the United States".¶ Pena Nieto proposes focusing efforts on projects that straddle the U.S.-Mexico border such as tunnels and high-tech border crossings, which would create jobs, boost security and promote economic development, Lozoya said.
|
Rama and Gardner 12 (Anahi Rama and Simon Gardner, writters for Reuters. 7/03/12. "Mexico's president-elect may double security spending: aide". Chicago Tribune. articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-03/news/sns-rt-us-mexico-election-securitybre86301s-20120703_1_enrique-pena-nieto-drug-violence-fight-drug)
|
Nieto's administration would try to boost efforts to tackle trans-border infrastructure projects to help create jobs, cut business costs U.S. financial aid was small in relation to Mexico's security spending, particularly Pena Nieto proposes focusing efforts on projects that straddle the U.S.-Mexico border such as tunnels and high-tech border crossings, which would create jobs, boost security and promote economic development
|
Text: The Federal Government of Mexico should [insert text of the plan].
| 1,415 | 72 | 428 | 210 | 12 | 60 | 0.057143 | 0.285714 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,770 |
To narrow the development gap, the three governments should not establish a new institution; instead, it should establish a fund to be managed in the most transparent way by the World Bank under a Board representing all three countries. Thus, the two papers converge. The computer model proposed an investment of about $20 billion each year to reach an annual rate of growth of 6 percent, and the paper on the European experiences suggests that if those funds were invested in infrastructure and education, that is likely to yield the highest rate of return. Moreover, the World Bank estimated the Mexico needs $20 billion per year for a decade to close the infrastructure gap. For North America to be a community, and for Mexico to begin to close the development gap, a North American Investment Fund is essential. With lessons from Europe, less than half of the amount which Europe has consistently invested in its poorest countries in the past 15 years – roughly €30-35 billion each year (at current exchange rates, approximately $40-45 billion) would be needed. And half of that would come from domestic savings (increased taxes). A good strategy would be to leverage the funds for infrastructure by making that part of an agreement that set new priorities on scarce public funds in education and on essential reforms on energy, electricity, etc. Indeed, instead of a quid pro quo, the essence of the North American Community is to define a vision of the future that lifts all states and in which each would contribute. The North American Investment Fund offers just such a vehicle. The question is whether the political leaders of the three countries are willing to drive or, at least, ride in that vehicle.
|
Pastor, 1AC author, 05 (Robert A. Pastor, Vice President of International Affairs, professor of international relations, Director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at the Center for North American studies, American University, former professor of political science at Emory University and fellow/founding director of the Carter Center’s Latin American and Caribbean Program, former national security advisor for Latin America, PhD from Harvard University, March 14, 2005, “The Paramount Challenge: An Introduction and Executive Study,” http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/NADBank.pdf, alp)
|
To narrow the development gap, the three governments should not establish a new institution it should establish a fund to be managed in the most transparent way by the World Bank under a Board representing all three countries. the World Bank estimated Mexico needs $20 billion per year for a decade to close the infrastructure gap. For North America to be a community, and for Mexico to begin to close the development gap, a North American Investment Fund is essential. A good strategy would be to leverage the funds for infrastructure by making that part of an agreement that set new priorities on scarce public funds in education essential reforms on energy, electricity, etc. the essence of the North American Community is to define a vision of the future that lifts all states The North American Investment Fund offers such a vehicle. The question is whether the political leaders are willing to drive that vehicle.
|
Text: The United States federal government should, in cooperation with the governments of Mexico and Canada, establish a North American Investment Fund overseen by the World Bank to invest in education, energy reforms, and upgrading the electric grid.
| 1,712 | 252 | 919 | 289 | 38 | 155 | 0.131488 | 0.536332 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,771 |
Cross-border trade is booming, but federal building money to expand and enhance border crossings has dried up. In response, a spate of proposals aim to leverage private funding to make up the difference, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Department of Homeland Security has created a task force to look at ways to encourage private investment in roads and other infrastructure at border crossings. In a recently proposed overhaul of the immigration system, the Obama administration also suggested allowing DHS to accept donations from citizens, businesses, and state and local governments to enhance border crossings, officially known as land ports of entry, according to a copy of the package obtained by USA Today, a sister paper of Federal Times. On a separate track, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in January reintroduced a bill that would allow Customs and Border Protection, part of DHS, to charge fees in return for providing extra customs and immigration services. The bill would also order the General Services Administration, which owns or leases about three-quarters of the 168 land ports of entry in CBP’s inventory, to set up a process for evaluating cost-sharing proposals for upkeep or construction of new infrastructure. The idea is to ensure that proposals for such alternative financing arrangements “no longer sit on desks in Washington for decades,” Cornyn said in a news release. Customs and Border Protection estimates it would take some $6 billion to fully modernize its ports of entry, which are more than 40 years old on average and lack the capacity to handle steadily growing traffic volumes. But as lawmakers crack down on federally funded construction, ports of entry projects have gotten no money from GSA’s Public Buildings Fund since 2010, according to numbers provided by the Texas Border Coalition, an advocacy group. “We think it’s a big deal,” John Cook, mayor of El Paso, Texas, and a backer of Cornyn’s bill, said in a phone interview. “Our No. 1 economic driver is international trade. Anything we can do to enhance and protect it is in our best interest.” There are no rules forbidding public-private partnerships, said Chris Wilson, a trade expert at the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “It’s more a matter of creating a stable legal framework that everyone can refer to.” One example of how this could work is underway along the California-Mexico border, where a group of investors have government approval to build an enclosed pedestrian bridge from San Diego to the Tijuana airport. In return for paying a toll, users will be able avoid traffic tie-ups elsewhere along the border. The walkway is scheduled to open next year. Congress has yet to act on any specific legislation to spur similar endeavors. And even if it does, permitting requirements and other hurdles means that new projects probably won’t take off for five more years, Wilson said. In a November report, the DHS Border Infrastructure Task Force outlined a host of other management considerations in setting the rules for privately funded projects. Customs and Border Protection should seek a legislative go-ahead to set user fees to cover facilities and staffing for new ports of entry, the task force said. It added that the agency’s commissioner also needs the authority to decide how much of the expenses private investors should pick up. Planning for new roads should involve the Canadian and Mexican governments, the task force report said, and partnership project team members should have visas allowing them to work on both sides of the border. The task force also acknowledged that some partnership projects might fail. Therefore, any agreements should require private investors to cover shutdown costs. CBP is already working on a separate task force recommendation to create an Office of Public-Private Partnerships to help coordinate planning and remove bureaucratic roadblocks. That office could also decide whether any projects already on the boards might lend themselves to private help.
|
Reilly, 13 Sean, reporter, the Federal Times, 3/6, http://apps.federaltimes.com/mobile/article/303060009, “Private investors sought for border infrastructure,” ADM
|
Cross-border trade is booming, but federal money to expand and enhance border crossings has dried up In response, a spate of proposals aim to leverage private funding The Department of Homeland Security has created a task force to encourage private investment in roads and other infrastructure at border crossings Sen Cornyn reintroduced a bill that would allow Customs to charge fees in return for providing extra customs and immigration services The idea is to ensure that proposals no longer sit on desks in Washington it would take some $6 billion to fully modernize ports of entry ports of entry projects have gotten no money There are no rules forbidding public-private partnerships It’s more a matter of creating a stable legal framework permitting requirements and other hurdles means that new projects probably won’t take off for five more years the DHS Border Infrastructure Task Force outlined other considerations agreements should require private investors to cover shutdown costs CBP is already working on a separate task force recommendation to create an Office of Public-Private Partnerships to coordinate planning and remove bureaucratic roadblocks
|
PPP’s solve – the feds don’t have money and bureaucracy causes massive delays
| 4,063 | 77 | 1,165 | 650 | 13 | 180 | 0.02 | 0.276923 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,772 |
Related to the growth in two-way trade is the need to facilitate movement of trucks across the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite an increased use of pre-clearance procedures, Mexican trucks must line up several kilometers from the border while they wait their turn to reach the fast lane that leads up to and through the U.S. border. Public-private partnerships are needed to construct the access roads some 10 kilometers from the border so that pre-cleared vehicles can move rapidly through the border zone. Currently, GPS vehicle trackers are used to link the sending and receiving manufacturers with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Before the truck even reaches the border post, CBP will know the content and value of the merchandise, as well as specifications on the cab and its driver. Only if tampering is detected will CBP stop the truck for secondary inspection, otherwise the truck sails through the border and onto its final destination. The Mexican private sector has demonstrated interest in constructing those access roads, but it needs presidential mandates from both governments to support the projects, as well as Mexican government purchase of necessary land.
|
Negroponte, 13 Diana Villiers, Formerly a trade lawyer and professor of history, Diana Negroponte is a nonresident senior fellow with the Latin America Initiative under Foreign Policy at Brookings. She focuses on Latin America and researches and writes about the New Left, populism and the relationship between criminal gangs and state institutions, 5/2/13, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/05/02-obama-mexico-trip-trade-investment-negroponte, “Obama’s Mexico Trip: Putting Trade and Investment at the Top of the Agenda,” ADM
|
Related to the two-way trade is the need to facilitate movement across the border trucks must line up several kilometers from the border while they wait their turn Public-private partnerships are needed to construct the access roads GPS vehicle trackers are used to link the manufacturers with Customs The Mexican private sector has demonstrated interest in constructing those access roads, but it needs presidential mandates from both governments
|
Solves the aff – Mexican companies are willing to invest
| 1,176 | 56 | 447 | 187 | 10 | 68 | 0.053476 | 0.363636 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,773 |
To restore growth, spur job creation, build momentum toward economic recovery for border communities and the United States, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FEBRUARY 6, 2013 Mr. GRIJALVA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Transportation and Infrastructure, Small Business, Oversight and Government Reform, Foreign Affairs, and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To restore growth, spur job creation, build momentum toward economic recovery for border communities and the United States, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013’. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) The United States and Mexico share a border of nearly 2,000 miles, a cultural heritage, and a desire to grow both economies through cooperation and hard work. (2) Border commerce is vital to the United States economy. Mexico is the United States third-largest trading partner, behind only Canada and China. In 2010, trade between the United States and Mexico reached $367,000,000,000, amounting to more than $1,000,000,000 per day. (3) Mexico is the second-largest export market for United States businesses and approximately 22 States depend on Mexico as their number one or two trading partner. (4) The growth of international trade has outpaced United States land ports of entry’s workload capacity, resulting in congestion and delays. This increased congestion hurts businesses that rely on safe and efficient cross-border traffic. SEC. 3. UNITED STATES-MEXICO ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP COMMISSION. (a) Establishment of Commission (1) IN GENERAL- There is established an independent commission to be known as the United States-Mexico Economic Partnership Commission (referred to in this section as the ‘Commission’). (2) PURPOSES- The purposes of the Commission are to- (A) study the overall economic strategies, programs, and policies of Federal departments and agencies along the United States-Mexico border, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, and other relevant departments and agencies; (B) strengthen relations and collaboration between communities along the United States-Mexico border and the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, and other Federal departments and agencies that carry out such strategies, programs, and policies; and (C) make recommendations to the President and Congress with respect to such strategies, programs, and policies. (8) MEETINGS (A) INITIAL MEETING- The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission as soon as practical. (B) SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS- After its initial meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call of the chairman or a majority of its members. (C) OUTREACH- The Commission shall formulate and implement an effective outreach strategy to border communities along the United States-Mexico border. (f) Report- Not later than two years after the date of the first meeting called pursuant to subsection (a)(8)(A), the Commission shall submit to the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, and Congress a report that contains- (1) findings with respect to the duties of the Commission; (2) recommendations regarding cross-border trade policies, strategies, and programs with respect to Mexico; (3) suggestions for the implementation of such recommendations; and (4) a recommendation as to whether the Commission should continue to exist after the date of termination described in subsection (i), and if so, a description of the purposes and duties recommended to be carried out by the Commission after such date. (g) Response to Report- Not later than 180 days after the receipt of the report required under subsection (f), the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce shall jointly issue a response describing how the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce will implement the recommendations contained in such report. (h) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
|
Grijalva 13 (Raul, member of the US House of Representatives for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, Democrat, GovTrack, introduced February 6, 2013, “H.R. 548: Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013,” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr548/text, alp)
|
To restore growth, spur job creation, build momentum toward economic recovery GRIJALVA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security A BILL To restore growth, spur job creation, build momentum toward economic recovery for border communities and the U S Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled This Act may be cited as the ‘Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013’ (1) The U S and Mexico share a border of 2,000 miles, a cultural heritage, and a desire to grow both economies Border commerce is vital to the economy. Mexico is the U S third-largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. The growth of international trade outpaced land ports of entry’s workload capacity, resulting in congestion There is established an independent commission to be known as the U S -Mexico Economic Partnership Commission The purposes of the Commission are to- (A) study the overall economic strategies, programs, and policies of Federal departments and agencies along the border (B) strengthen relations and collaboration between communities along the border and other Federal departments and agencies and (C) make recommendations to the President and Congress with respect to strategies, programs, and policies. The Commission shall meet and begin as soon as practical. The Commission shall formulate and implement an effective outreach strategy to border communities along the border. the Commission shall submit to the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, and Congress a report that contains findings with respect to the duties of the Commission; recommendations regarding cross-border trade policies, strategies, and programs with respect to Mexico; suggestions for the implementation of such recommendations; and a recommendation as to whether the Commission should continue to exist the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce shall jointly issue a response describing how the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce will implement the recommendations contained
|
Text: The Congress of the United States should establish the United States-Mexico Economic Partnership Commission as outlined in House Resolution 548 to examine the feasibility of [specific plan text] and should ask the commission to publish its recommendations.
| 4,514 | 262 | 2,151 | 680 | 38 | 327 | 0.055882 | 0.480882 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,774 |
(3) MEMBERSHIP (A) VOTING MEMBERS- The Commission shall be composed of 16 voting members. The Governors of the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas shall each appoint four such members, of whom- (i) one shall be a local elected official from each such State’s border region; (ii) one shall be an individual from academia or a community leader of each such State; and (iii) two shall be from each such State’s border region business community. (B) NONVOTING MEMBERS- The Commission shall be composed of two nonvoting members, of whom- (i) one shall be appointed by the Secretary of Homeland Security; and (ii) one shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. (4) QUALIFICATIONS (A) IN GENERAL- Members of the Commission shall be- (i) individuals with expertise in migration, border enforcement and protection, civil and human rights, community relations, cross-border trade and commerce, or other pertinent qualifications or experience; and (ii) representative of a broad cross section of perspectives from the region along the international border between the United States and Mexico. (B) POLITICAL AFFILIATION- Not more than two members of the Commission appointed by each Governor in accordance with paragraph (3)(A) may be members of the same political party. (C) NONGOVERNMENTAL APPOINTEES- An individual appointed as a voting member to the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the Federal Government.
|
Grijalva 13 (Raul, member of the US House of Representatives for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, Democrat, GovTrack, introduced February 6, 2013, “H.R. 548: Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013,” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr548/text, alp)
|
The Commission shall be composed of 16 voting members. Governors of the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas shall each appoint four members, of whom- (i) one shall be a local elected official from each such State’s border region; (ii) one shall be an individual from academia or a community leader and (iii) two shall be from each such State’s border region business community. Members of the Commission shall be individuals with expertise in migration, border enforcement and protection, civil and human rights, community relations, cross-border trade and commerce, or other pertinent qualifications or experience; and representative of a broad cross section of perspectives Not more than two members of the Commission appointed by each Governor may be members of the same political party. An individual appointed as a voting member may not be an officer or employee of the Federal Government.
|
No bias – selection process proves members are qualified
| 1,437 | 56 | 911 | 225 | 9 | 144 | 0.04 | 0.64 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,775 |
(5) DEADLINE FOR APPOINTMENT- All members of the Commission shall be appointed not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act. If any member of the Commission described in paragraph (3)(A) is not appointed by such date, the Commission shall carry out its duties under this section without participation of such member. (7) VACANCIES- Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
|
Grijalva 13 (Raul, member of the US House of Representatives for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, Democrat, GovTrack, introduced February 6, 2013, “H.R. 548: Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013,” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr548/text, alp)
|
(5) DEADLINE FOR APPOINTMENT- All members of the Commission shall be appointed not later than six months after enactment If any member of the Commission is not appointed the Commission shall carry out its duties without participation of such member. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
|
No quantitative or qualitative impact to the minimal delay
| 498 | 58 | 391 | 84 | 9 | 65 | 0.107143 | 0.77381 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,776 |
(b) Duties- The Commission shall review and examine cross-border trade policies, strategies, and programs with Mexico, including- (1) the effect of operations, technology, and infrastructure along such border on the- (A) environment; (B) cross-border traffic and commerce; (C) privacy rights and other civil liberties; and (D) the quality of life of border communities; (2) the extent of the negative economic impact, if any, on the United States due to staffing needs at land ports of entry along the such border; (3) whether border policies and practices ensure that the free flow of legitimate travel and commerce is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the international land ports of entry along the United States-Mexico border; and (4) any other matters regarding cross-border trade policies, strategies, and programs the Commission determines appropriate.
|
Grijalva 13 (Raul, member of the US House of Representatives for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, Democrat, GovTrack, introduced February 6, 2013, “H.R. 548: Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013,” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr548/text, alp)
|
The Commission shall review and examine cross-border trade policies, strategies, and programs with Mexico the effect of operations, technology, and infrastructure on the- (A) environment; (B) cross-border traffic and commerce; (C) vil liberties; and (D) the quality of life of border communities the extent of the negative economic impact due to staffing needs at land ports of entry whether border policies and practices ensure that the free flow of legitimate commerce is not diminished by efforts aimed at securing ports of entry any other matters regarding cross-border trade policies, strategies, and programs the Commission determines appropriate.
|
They have jurisdiction over the harms of the 1AC
| 895 | 48 | 653 | 134 | 9 | 96 | 0.067164 | 0.716418 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,777 |
(c) Powers of Commission (1) IN GENERAL (A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this Act- (i) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, administer such oaths; and (ii) subject to subparagraph (B), require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as the Commission or such designated subcommittee or designated member may determine advisable. (B) SUBPOENAS (i) ISSUANCE- A subpoena may be issued under this subsection only- (I) by the agreement of the chairman and the vice chairman; or (II) by the affirmative vote of six members of the Commission. (ii) SIGNATURE- Subject to clause (i), subpoenas issued under this subsection may be issued under the signature of the chairman or any member designated by a majority of the Commission, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman or by a member designated by a majority of the Commission. (iii) ENFORCEMENT- In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued under this paragraph, the United States district court for the judicial district in which the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order requiring such person to appear at any designated place to testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of such court may be punished by such court as a contempt of such court.
|
Grijalva 13 (Raul, member of the US House of Representatives for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, Democrat, GovTrack, introduced February 6, 2013, “H.R. 548: Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013,” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr548/text, alp)
|
The Commission may, for the purpose of carrying out this Act hold hearings take testimony, receive evidence require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of witnesses as the Commission may determine advisable. In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued under this paragraph, the U S district court in which the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order requiring such person to appear at any designated place to testify or to produce documentary Any failure to obey the order of such court may be punished by such court as a contempt of such court.
|
They can subpoena any information required
| 1,656 | 42 | 654 | 274 | 6 | 112 | 0.021898 | 0.408759 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,778 |
(3) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES (A) IN GENERAL- The Commission is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of carrying out this Act. Each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the chairman, the chairman of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or any member designated by a majority of the Commission. (B) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION- Information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics referred to in subparagraph (A) shall only be received, handled, stored, and disseminated by members of the Commission and its staff in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, and Executive orders. (4) ASSISTANCE FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES (A) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission’s functions. (B) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to the assistance prescribed in subparagraph (A), the heads of Federal departments and agencies may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law. (5) POSTAL SERVICES- The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as Federal departments and agencies of the United States.
|
Grijalva 13 (Raul, member of the US House of Representatives for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, Democrat, GovTrack, introduced February 6, 2013, “H.R. 548: Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013,” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr548/text, alp)
|
The Commission is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of carrying out this Act. Each shall, to the extent authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission’s functions. the heads of Federal departments and agencies may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as they may determine advisable
|
Inter-agency info sharing solves
| 1,804 | 32 | 795 | 255 | 4 | 109 | 0.015686 | 0.427451 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,779 |
SEC. 5. IMPROVING PORTS OF ENTRY ON THE SOUTHWEST BORDER FOR BORDER SECURITY AND OTHER PURPOSES. (a) In General- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the General Services Administration- (1) $200,000,000 for fiscal 2014 solely for planning, management, design, alteration, and construction of United States Customs and Border Protection owned land border ports of entry along the international border between the United States and Mexico; and (2) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 solely for the installation of renewable energy retrofits at land border ports of entry along the international border between the United States and Mexico. (b) Allocation of Authorized Funds- Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to subsection (a)(1)- (1) not more than 40 percent may be set aside for the San Luis I land port of entry; and (2) not more than 60 percent may be set aside for the Douglas land port of entry. SEC. 7. IMPROVING CROSS-BORDER TRANSPORTATION. (a) In General- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Highway Administration $100,000,000 for fiscal 2014 for- (1) improvements to existing transportation and supporting infrastructure along the United States-Mexico border; (2) construction of highways and related safety and enforcement facilities related to international trade with Mexico; and (3) international coordination of transportation planning, programming, and border operations with Mexico. (b) Allocation of Authorized Funds- Of amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to subsection (a), not more than 30 percent may be set aside for projects 50 miles from the United States-Mexico border.
|
Grijalva 13 (Raul, member of the US House of Representatives for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, Democrat, GovTrack, introduced February 6, 2013, “H.R. 548: Border Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2013,” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr548/text, alp)
|
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the General Services Administration $200,000,000 for fiscal 2014 solely for planning, management, design, alteration, and construction of Customs and Border Protection owned land border ports of entry along the border between the U S and Mexico; and 100,000,000 for the installation of energy retrofits There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Highway Administration $100,000,000 for fiscal 2014 for- (1) improvements to existing transportation and supporting infrastructure along the border construction of highways and related safety and enforcement facilities related to international trade with Mexico; and coordination of transportation planning
|
They have sufficient funding and discretionary authority
| 1,672 | 56 | 728 | 252 | 7 | 101 | 0.027778 | 0.400794 |
Mexico Border Infrastructure Negative Supplement - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
4,780 |
One thing the hegemonic mind can do to dismantle or decolonize the structure of its hegemonism, and thus to free itself from its own colonization, from the scripts institutional oppression gives it to enact, is to see itself through the eyes of the other. This would be an inversion of the DuBoisian notion of double consciousness. Double consciousness, according to DuBois, is the consciousness of the racialized, of having to see oneself always through the eyes of another, in the dominance and derogation of a hegemonic group. For decolonization, it is the hegemonic mind that must see itself through the eyes of those who see it as hegemonic, to see what it looks like to them, and to see what it means to them -- and thereby to confront dominance or hegemony in one's own person.
|
Martinot 04 (Steve, Adjunct Professor of Mixed Race Studies, UC San Francisco, Coloniality of Power, Oct 14, 2004, http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marto/coloniality.htm)
|
One thing the hegemonic mind can do to dismantle or decolonize the structure of its hegemonism, and thus to free itself from its own colonization, from the scripts institutional oppression gives it to enact, is to see itself through the eyes of the other. For decolonization, it is the hegemonic mind that must see itself through the eyes of those who see it as hegemonic, to see what it looks like to them, and to see what it means to them -- and thereby to confront dominance or hegemony in one's own person.
|
Adopting a different mindset is enough to begin the decolonization process
| 784 | 74 | 510 | 136 | 11 | 93 | 0.080882 | 0.683824 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,781 |
Do anti-war protests really stop the United States from invading another country? Do pro-choice marches affect legislation on abortion? Did sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement help to end racism? These are the questions that Peter Gelderloos asks in his new book How Nonviolence Protects the State. With a wealth of experience in anti-prison work, prisoner support organizations,and the anti-war and anti-globalization movements, Gelderloos brings his seasoned perspective to these important issues. Drawing on large historical events, such as the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement, Gelderloos shows how pacifists and nonviolent protests have not achieved the same results that active resistance has. At a time when everyone in the world, except for the US government, is realizing that US troops need to leave Iraq now, Gelderloos’ book argues how ineffective the current peace movement has been at stopping the war and creating any sort of political change. Before the war broke out over four years ago, “[s]ome groups, like United for Peace and Justice, suggested the protests might avert the war. Of course, they were totally wrong, and the protests totally ineffective. The invasion occurred as planned, despite the millions of people nominally, peacefully, and powerlessly opposed to it.” So how do we switch our peace movement from marching in the streets to actually resisting our government and creating change? It is this question that Gelderloos has a difficult time answering. How Nonviolence Protects the State is not meant to change any minds. Instead, it reads as a reassurance for those who already know the ineffectiveness of peace movements. Gelderloos’ language is aggressive at times, as he conflates peace activists with “good sheep.” But perhaps this is his point. Maybe if we started to realize that marches and nonviolent protests were ultimately tools of society to make people feel as if they are creating change, then we would actually find a way to resist our government and create the change we want on our own terms. Covering a diverse range of topics, from how nonviolence is racist to how nonviolence is patriarchal, How Nonviolence Protects the State is an important book to read for anyone who recognizes the ineffectiveness of peace activism today. And while the text doesn’t provide many answers, it does inspire the reader to reconsider her notions of “activism” and “change.”
|
Clammer 07,[Chelsey, MA in Journalism from Loyola, “How nonviolence protects the state”, http://feministreview.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-nonviolence-protects-state.html]
|
Do anti-war protests really stop the United States from invading another country pacifists and nonviolent protests have not achieved the same results that active resistance has. At a time when everyone in the world, except for the US government, is realizing that US troops need to leave Iraq now peace movement has been at stopping the war and creating any sort of political change Before the war broke out over four years ago, “[s]ome groups, like United for Peace and Justice, suggested the protests might avert the war Of course, they were totally wrong, and the protests totally ineffective The invasion occurred as planned, despite the millions of people nominally, peacefully, and powerlessly opposed to it Maybe if we started to realize that marches and nonviolent protests were ultimately tools of society to make people feel as if they are creating change, then we would actually find a way to resist our government and create the change we want on our own terms.
|
Only the Permutation Can Solve the Issues Brought Up – protests and resistance fail on their own
| 2,426 | 97 | 973 | 386 | 17 | 163 | 0.044041 | 0.42228 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,782 |
Could we not leave veils and vocations of saving others behind and instead train our sights on ways to make the world a more just place? The reason respect for difference should not be confused with cultural relativism is that it does not preclude asking how we, living in this privileged and powerful part of the world, might examine our own responsibilities for the situations in which others in distant places have found themselves. We do not stand outside the world, looking out over this sea of poor benighted people, living under the shadow-or veil-of oppressive cultures; we are part of that world. Islamic movements themselves have arisen in a world shaped by the intense engagements of Western powers in Middle Eastern lives. A more productive approach, it seems to me, is to ask how we might contribute to making the world a more just place. A world not organized around strategic military and economic demands; a place where certain kinds of forces and values that we may still consider important could have an appeal and where there is the peace necessary for discussions, debates, and transformations to occur within communities. We need to ask ourselves what kinds of world conditions we could contribute to making such that popular desires will not be over determined by an overwhelming sense of helplessness in the face of forms of global injustice. Where we seek to be active in the affairs of distant places, can we do so in the spirit of support for those within those communities whose goals are to make women's (and men's) lives better (as Walley has argued in relation to practices of genital cutting in Africa, [1997])? Can we use a more egalitarian language of alliances, coalitions, and solidarity, instead of salvation? Even RAWA, the now celebrated Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, which was so instrumental in bringing to U.S. women's attention the excesses of the Taliban, has opposed the U.S. bombing from the beginning. They do not see in it Afghan women's salvation but increased hardship and loss. They have long called for disarmament and for peacekeeping forces. Spokespersons point out the dangers of confusing governments with people, the Taliban with innocent Afghans who will be most harmed. They consistently remind audiences to take a close look at the ways policies are being organized around oil interests, the arms industry, and the international drug trade. They are not obsessed with the veil, even though they are the most radical feminists working for a secular democratic Afghanistan. Unfortunately, only their messages about the excesses of the Taliban have been heard, even though their criticisms of those in power in Afghanistan have included previous regimes. A first step in hearing their wider message is to break with the language of alien cultures, whether to understand or eliminate them. Missionary work and colonial feminism belong in the past. Our task is to critically explore what we might do to help create a world in which those poor Afghan women, for whom "the hearts of those in the civilized world break," can have safety and decent lives.
|
Abu-Lughod 2(Lila, professor of anthropology and Women's and Gender Studies at Columbia University “Do Muslim women really need saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its others” )AQB
|
Could we not leave veils and vocations of saving others behind and instead train our sights on ways to make the world a more just place? The reason respect for difference should not be confused with cultural relativism is that it does not preclude asking how we, living in this privileged and powerful part of the world, might examine our own responsibilities for the situations in which others in distant places have found themselves. lives. A more productive approach, it seems to me, is to ask how we might contribute to making the world a more just place. A world not organized around strategic military and economic demands; a place where certain kinds of forces and values that we may still consider important could have an appeal and where there is the peace necessary for discussions, debates, and transformations to occur within communities. Where we seek to be active in the affairs of distant places, can we do so in the spirit of support for those within those communities whose goals are to make women's (and men's) lives better use a more egalitarian language of alliances, coalitions, and solidarity, instead of salvation . A first step in hearing their wider message is to break with the language of alien cultures,
|
Perm – Respect For Differences and a Coalition doesn’t mean severance
| 3,130 | 69 | 1,231 | 518 | 11 | 210 | 0.021236 | 0.405405 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,783 |
For those concerned with parochial interpretivism, human rights are just a positivist form of status quo domination. For others, particularly those suffering under various forms of autocracy, human rights are to be greatly desired. If we consider human rights to be justice, following Aristotle, as opposed to mere legal forms of discrimination, we insist that human rights protection value incorporating more and more law in predictable, positive form. This is the hallmark of the democratization of domestic and international society, but requires coercion for enforcement of those rights.¶ Human rights is not a new idea, but is derived from Western sources; to that extent, they are relative to time and geography. Yet, they are universal because all states, over time, should develop protections of individuals and groups from undeniably universally perceived harms, the right to life and from torture and rape among them. Some rights are non-derogable and others are—on cultural grounds and [*371] other reasonable particularities, among them local institutional means of implementation. Only states can protect rights. How to reconcile the self-enforcing role of states with interests and motives of their own merits full scholarly consideration. This challenge should not be cavalierly dismissed as delegitimating. Thus, as Donnelly has suggested, “Human rights are, to use an appropriately paradoxical phrase, relatively universal” (Donnelly 1989, p.124).
|
Carey 04 (Henry, Associate Professor University of Georgia State, READING HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE USE OF FORCE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/orford604.htm)
|
For those concerned with parochial interpretivism, human rights are just a positivist form of status quo domination For others, particularly those suffering under various forms of autocracy, human rights are to be greatly desired we insist that human rights protection value incorporating more and more law in predictable, positive form. This is the hallmark of the democratization of domestic and international society, but requires coercion for enforcement of those rights.¶ Human rights is not a new idea, but is derived from Western sources; to that extent, they are relative to time and geography. Yet, they are universal because all states, over time, should develop protections of individuals and groups from undeniably universally perceived harms, the right to life and from torture and rape among them
|
The concept of human rights may be derived from the west, but should be a universal ideal: The Neg’s Declaration of Colonialism is nothing but deification of the alternative.
| 1,464 | 175 | 810 | 216 | 29 | 125 | 0.134259 | 0.578704 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,784 |
Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These two findings are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies-by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian or totalitarian: the Soviet Union, the People''s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime. The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after 1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples.29
|
Jones 98 (Sean, Editor of International Security, March 1998, Why the US Should Spread Democracy, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/146/sean_m_lynnjones.html?back_url=%2Fpublication%2F2830%2Fwhy_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html&back_text=Back%20to%20publication)
|
Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments democracies saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48 citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian or totalitarian Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens on a large scale,
|
Citizens Living Under Democracy Encounter lower rates of internal violence, shields them from totalitarian regimes.
| 1,505 | 116 | 807 | 223 | 15 | 121 | 0.067265 | 0.542601 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,785 |
The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn''t this country focus on its own problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions. First, as human beings, American should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States.19 To be sure, these bonds and obligations are limited by the competitive nature of the international system. In a world where the use of force remains possible, no government can afford to pursue a foreign policy based on altruism. The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which borders and national identities become irrelevant. But there are many possibilities for action motivated by concern for individuals in other countries. In the United States, continued public concern over human rights in other countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental efforts to relieve hunger, poverty, and suffering overseas, suggest that Americans accept some bonds of common humanity and feel some obligations to foreigners. The emergence of the so-called "CNN Effect"-the tendency for Americans to be aroused to action by television images of suffering people overseas-is further evidence that cosmopolitan ethical sentiments exist. If Americans care about improving the lives of the citizens of other countries, then the case for promoting democracy grows stronger to the extent that promoting democracy is an effective means to achieve this end. Second, Americans have a particular interest in promoting the spread of liberty. The United States was founded on the principle of securing liberty for its citizens. Its founding documents and institutions all emphasize that liberty is a core value. Among the many observers and political scientists who make this point is Samuel Huntington, who argues that America''s "identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values."20 As I argue below, one of the most important benefits of the spread of democracy-and especially of liberal democracy-is an expansion of human liberty. Given its founding principles and very identity, the United States has a large stake in advancing its core value of liberty. As Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott has argued: "The United States is uniquely and self-consciously a country founded on a set of ideas, and ideals, applicable to people everywhere. The Founding Fathers declared that all were created equal-not just those in Britain''s 13 American colonies-and that to secure the `unalienable rights'' of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, people had the right to establish governments that derive `their just powers from the consent of the governed.''"21 Third, improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the United States cannot insulate itself from the world. It may be a cliché to say that the world is becoming more interdependent, but it is undeniable that changes in communications technologies, trade flows, and the environment have opened borders and created a more interconnected world. These trends give the United States a greater stake in the fate of other societies, because widespread misery abroad may create political turmoil, economic instability, refugee flows, and environmental damage that will affect Americans. As I argue below in my discussion of how promoting democracy serves U.S. interests, the spread of democracy will directly advance the national interests of the United States. The growing interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas can have unpredictable consequences for the United States. For these three reasons, at least, Americans should care about how the spread of democracy can improve the lives of people in other countries.
|
Lynn-Jones 98 (Sean, March, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, "Why the United States Should SpreadDemocracy",http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html, BC)
|
The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. , as human beings, American should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other human beings The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which borders and national identities become irrelevant the United States, continued public concern over human rights in other countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental efforts to relieve hunger, poverty, and suffering overseas, suggest that Americans accept some bonds of common humanity and feel some obligations to foreigners The United States was founded on the principle of securing liberty for its citizens. Its founding documents and institutions all emphasize that liberty is a core value. one of the most important benefits of the spread of democracy-and especially of liberal democracy-is an expansion of human liberty. improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the United States cannot insulate itself from the world. the world is becoming more interdependent These trends give the United States a greater stake in the fate of other societies, because widespread misery abroad may create political turmoil, economic instability, refugee flows, and environmental damage that will affect Americans The growing interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries Americans should care about how the spread of democracy can improve the lives of people in other countries.
|
Spreading democracy is good it leads to better quality of life, more personal freedoms, and interdependence
| 4,385 | 107 | 1,868 | 672 | 16 | 279 | 0.02381 | 0.415179 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,786 |
The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn''t this country focus on its own problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions.
|
Jones 98 (Sean, Editor of International Security, March 1998, Why the US Should Spread Democracy, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/146/sean_m_lynnjones.html?back_url=%2Fpublication%2F2830%2Fwhy_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html&back_text=Back%20to%20publication)
|
The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn''t this country focus on its own problems and interests
|
Humans have a moral obligation to spread democracy
| 579 | 50 | 481 | 83 | 8 | 69 | 0.096386 | 0.831325 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,787 |
The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to own private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic politics. As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is "the peculiar virtue of democracy."23 A democratic political process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom to make electoral choices. Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Freedom House''s 1997 survey of "Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be classified as "free" and 39 were "partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high partly free." In contrast, only 20 of the world''s 73 nondemocracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not free."24 The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian calculations or in terms of natural rights. The utilitarian case for increasing the amount of individual liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more people to realize their full human potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of humankind. This view holds that greater liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and productive energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. The rights-based case for liberty, on the other hand, does not focus on the consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues that all men and women, by virtue of their common humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is most memorably expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..." The virtues of greater individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue against making liberty the paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that individual liberty is an important goal, but call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved. Others place greater emphasis on obligations to the community. The British Fabian Socialist Sidney Webb, for example, articulated this view clearly: "The perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his humble function in the great social machine."25 To debate these issues thoroughly would require a paper far longer than this one.26 The short response to most critiques of liberty is that there appears to be a universal demand for liberty among human beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development elevates societies above subsistence levels, individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives. More important, most political systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to liberty have tended to devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.
|
Lynn-Jones 98 (Sean, March, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, "Why the United States Should SpreadDemocracy",http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html, BC)
|
which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to own private property , governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian calculations or in terms of natural rights. The utilitarian case for increasing the amount of individual liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more people to realize their full human potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of humankind. This view holds that greater liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and productive energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. , most political systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to liberty have tended to devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.
|
Democracy is key to protecting individual liberties
| 3,544 | 51 | 1,333 | 553 | 7 | 206 | 0.012658 | 0.372514 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,788 |
Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These two findings are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies-by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian or totalitarian: the Soviet Union, the People''s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime. The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after 1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples.29 There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in democracies: (1) Democratic political systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain the power of governments, reducing their ability to commit mass murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, "Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus, the more thoroughly it can repress and murder its subjects."30 (2) Democratic polities allow opposition to be expressed openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants in the political process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the government need not stage violent revolutions and governments will not use violence to repress opponents.31
|
Lynn-Jones 98 (Sean, March, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, "Why the United States Should SpreadDemocracy",http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html, BC)
|
America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments Rummel finds that democracies between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens Democratic polities allow opposition to be expressed openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants in the political process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the government need not stage violent revolutions and governments will not use violence to repress opponents.31
|
Democracy decreases the likelihood of governments lashing out against their citizens
| 2,319 | 85 | 801 | 343 | 11 | 121 | 0.03207 | 0.35277 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,789 |
A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long periods of time. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits. Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close correlation with prosperity" is one of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy.32 Some democracies, including India and the Philippines, have languished economically, at least until the last few years. Others are among the most prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul democracies generally prosper. As Mancur Olson points out: "It is no accident that the countries that have reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable democracies."33 Authoritarian regimes often compile impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the Soviet Union''s annual growth in gross national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States, leading Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to pronounce "we will bury you." China has posted double-digit annual GNP increases in recent years. But autocratic countries rarely can sustain these rates of growth for long. As Mancur Olson notes, "experience shows that relatively poor countries can grow extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong dictator who happens to have unusually good economic policies, such growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two dictators."34 The Soviet Union was unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in the throes of political and economic turmoil. Most experts doubt that China will continue its rapid economic expansion. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati argues that "no one can maintain these growth rates in the long term. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race."35 Some observers predict that the stresses of high rates of economic growth will cause political fragmentation in China.36 Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? Two reasons are particularly persuasive explanations. First, democracies-especially liberal democracies-are more likely to have market economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. Most of the world''s leading economies thus tend to be market economies, including the United States, Japan, the "tiger" economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct connection between economic liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House conducted a World Survey of Economic Freedom for 1995-96, which evaluated 80 countries that account for 90% of the world''s population and 99% of the world''s wealth on the basis of criteria such as the right to own property, operate a business, or belong to a trade union. It found that the countries rated "free" generated 81% of the world''s output even though they had only 17% of the world''s population.37 A second recent study confirms the connection between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation has constructed an Index of Economic Freedom that looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation, government intervention, monetary policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking policy, wage and price controls, property rights, regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries classified as "free" had annual 1980-1993 real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (expressed in terms of purchasing power parities) growth rates of 2.88%. In "mostly free" countries the rate was 0.97%, in "mostly not free" ones -0.32%, and in "repressed" countries -1.44%.38 Of course, some democracies do not adopt market economies and some autocracies do, but liberal democracies generally are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies. Second, democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions require assurances that private property will be respected and that contracts will be enforced. These conditions are likely to be met when an impartial court system exists and can require individuals to enforce contracts. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that: "The guiding mechanism of a free market economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary."39 These conditions also happen to be those that are necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to uphold liberal principles of individual rights. Mancur Olson thus points out that "the conditions that are needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same conditions that are needed to have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also required for security of property and contract rights."40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis for long-term economic growth. A third reason may operate in some circumstances: democratic governments are more likely to have the political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms.41 This factor is particularly likely to be important in former communist countries, but it also appears to have played a role in the decisions India and the Philippines have taken in recent years to pursue difficult economic reforms.42
|
Lynn-Jones 98 (Sean, March, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, "Why the United States Should SpreadDemocracy",http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html, BC)
|
promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long periods of time. democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits. the long haul democracies generally prosper. : "It is no accident that the countries that have reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable democracies." The Soviet Union was unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in the throes of political and economic turmoil. democracies-especially liberal democracies-are more likely to have market economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. , democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. democracy is the basis for long-term economic growth democratic governments are more likely to have the political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms.
|
Democracies are key to economic sustainability
| 5,699 | 47 | 1,158 | 860 | 6 | 166 | 0.006977 | 0.193023 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,790 |
Fourth, the United States should spread democracy because the citizens of democracies do not suffer from famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that "one of the remarkable facts in the terrible history of famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press."43 This striking empirical regularity has been overshadowed by the apparent existence of a "democratic peace" (see below), but it provides a powerful argument for promoting democracy. Although this claim has been most closely identified with Sen, other scholars who have studied famines and hunger reach similar conclusions. Joseph Collins, for example, argues that: "Wherever political rights for all citizens truly flourish, people will see to it that, in due course, they share in control over economic resources vital to their survival. Lasting food security thus requires real and sustained democracy."44 Most of the countries that have experienced severe famines in recent decades have been among the world''s least democratic: the Soviet Union (Ukraine in the early 1930s), China, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia and Sudan. Throughout history, famines have occurred in many different types of countries, but never in a democracy. Democracies do not experience famines for two reasons. First, in democracies governments are accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation. The need to be reelected impels politicians to ensure that their people do not starve. As Sen points out, "the plight of famine victims is easy to politicize" and "the effectiveness of democracy in the prevention of famine has tended to depend on the politicization of the plight of famine victims, through the process of public discussion, which generates political solidarity."45 On the other hand, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not accountable to the public; they are less likely to pay a political price for failing to prevent famines. Moreover, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers often have political incentives to use famine as a means of exterminating their domestic opponents. Second, the existence of a free press and the free flow of information in democracies prevents famine by serving as an early warning system on the effects of natural catastrophes such as floods and droughts that may cause food scarcities. A free press that criticizes government policies also can publicize the true level of food stocks and reveal problems of distribution that might cause famines even when food is plentiful.46 Inadequate information has contributed to several famines. During the 1958-61 famine in China that killed 20-30 million people, the Chinese authorities overestimated the country''s grain reserves by 100 million metric tons. This disaster later led Mao Zedong to concede that "Without democracy, you have no understanding of what is happening down below."47 The 1974 Bangladesh famine also could have been avoided if the government had had better information. The food supply was high, but floods, unemployment, and panic made it harder for those in need to obtain food.48 The two factors that prevent famines in democracies-electoral incentives and the free flow of information-are likely to be present even in democracies that do not have a liberal political culture. These factors exist when leaders face periodic elections and when the press is free to report information that might embarrass the government. A full-fledged liberal democracy with guarantees of civil liberties, a relatively free economic market, and an independent judiciary might be even less likely to suffer famines, but it appears that the rudiments of electoral democracy will suffice to prevent famines. The ability of democracies to avoid famines cannot be attributed to any tendency of democracies to fare better economically. Poor democracies as well as rich ones have not had famines. India, Botswana, and Zimbabwe have avoided famines, even when they have suffered large crop shortfalls. In fact, the evidence suggests that democracies can avoid famines in the face of large crop failures, whereas nondemocracies plunge into famine after smaller shortfalls. Botswana''s food production fell by 17% and Zimbabwe''s by 38% between 1979-81 and 1983-84, whereas Sudan and Ethiopia saw a decline in food production of 11-12% during the same period. Sudan and Ethiopia, which were nondemocracies, suffered major famines, whereas the democracies of Botswana and Zimbabwe did not.49 If, as I have argued, democracies enjoy better long-run economic performance than nondemocracies, higher levels of economic development may help democracies to avoid famines. But the absence of famines in new, poor democracies suggests that democratic governance itself is sufficient to prevent famines. The case of India before and after independence provides further evidence that democratic rule is a key factor in preventing famines. Prior to independence in 1947, India suffered frequent famines. Shortly before India became independent, the Bengal famine of 1943 killed 2-3 million people. Since India became independent and democratic, the country has suffered severe crop failures and food shortages in 1968, 1973, 1979, and 1987, but it has never suffered a famine.50
|
Lynn-Jones 98 (Sean, March, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, "Why the United States Should SpreadDemocracy",http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html, BC)
|
the United States should spread democracy because the citizens of democracies do not suffer from famines no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press." "Wherever political rights for all citizens truly flourish, people will see to it that, in due course, they share in control over economic resources vital to their survival. Lasting food security thus requires real and sustained democracy Democracies do not experience famines for two reasons. First, in democracies governments are accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation. the existence of a free press and the free flow of information in democracies prevents famine by serving as an early warning system on the effects of natural catastrophes such as floods and droughts that may cause food scarcities. A free press that criticizes government policies also can publicize the true level of food stocks and reveal problems of distribution that might cause famines even when food is plentiful.46 The ability of democracies to avoid famines cannot be attributed to any tendency of democracies to fare better economically. Poor democracies as well as rich ones have not had famines. But the absence of famines in new, poor democracies suggests that democratic governance itself is sufficient to prevent famines
|
Democracies are key to solving famine
| 5,344 | 38 | 1,404 | 815 | 6 | 218 | 0.007362 | 0.267485 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,791 |
Despite their suspect motives and bad behavior, however, the British needed a certain amount of infrastructure to effectively govern India. So they built roads, shipping docks, railway tracks, irrigation systems, and government buildings. Then they realized that they needed courts of law to adjudicate disputes that went beyond local systems of dispensing justice. And so the British legal system was introduced, with all its procedural novelties, like "innocent until proven guilty." The British also had to educate the Indians, in order to communicate with them and to train them to be civil servants in the empire. Thus Indian children were exposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, Hobbes, and Locke. In that way the Indians began to encounter words and ideas that were unmentioned in their ancestral culture: "liberty," "sovereignty," "rights," and so on.¶ That brings me to the greatest benefit that the British provided to the Indians: They taught them the language of freedom. Once again, it was not the objective of the colonial rulers to encourage rebellion. But by exposing Indians to the ideas of the West, they did. The Indian leaders were the product of Western civilization. Gandhi studied in England and South Africa; Nehru was a product of Harrow and Cambridge. That exposure was not entirely to the good; Nehru, for example, who became India's first prime minister after independence, was highly influenced by Fabian socialism through the teachings of Harold Laski. The result was that India had a mismanaged socialist economy for a generation. But my broader point is that the champions of Indian independence acquired the principles, the language, and even the strategies of liberation from the civilization of their oppressors. This was true not just of India but also of other Asian and African countries that broke free of the European yoke.¶ My conclusion is that against their intentions, the colonialists brought things to India that have immeasurably enriched the lives of the descendants of colonialism. It is doubtful that non-Western countries would have acquired those good things by themselves. It was the British who, applying a universal notion of human rights, in the early 19th century abolished the ancient Indian institution of suttee -- the custom of tossing widows on their husbands' funeral pyres. There is no reason to believe that the Indians, who had practiced suttee for centuries, would have reached such a conclusion on their own. Imagine an African or Indian king encountering the works of Locke or Madison and saying, "You know, I think those fellows have a good point. I should relinquish my power and let my people decide whether they want me or someone else to rule." Somehow, I don't see that as likely.¶ Colonialism was the transmission belt that brought to Asia, Africa, and South America the blessings of Western civilization. Many of those cultures continue to have serious problems of tyranny, tribal and religious conflict, poverty, and underdevelopment, but that is not due to an excess of Western influence; rather, it is due to the fact that those countries are insufficiently Westernized. Sub-Saharan Africa, which is probably in the worst position, has been described by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan as "a cocktail of disasters." That is not because colonialism in Africa lasted so long, but because it lasted a mere half-century. It was too short a time to permit Western institutions to take firm root. Consequently, after their independence, most African nations have retreated into a kind of tribal barbarism that can be remedied only with more Western influence, not less. Africa needs more Western capital, more technology, more rule of law, and more individual freedom.
|
D’Souza 02 (Dinesh, Political Author and Commentator, Two Cheers for Colonialism, 5/08/2002, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/680152/posts)
|
Despite their suspect motives and bad behavior, however, the British needed a certain amount of infrastructure to effectively govern India. So they built roads, shipping docks, railway tracks, irrigation systems, and government buildings. Then they realized that they needed courts of law to adjudicate disputes that went beyond local systems of dispensing justice And so the British legal system was introduced, with all its procedural novelties, like "innocent until proven guilty." The British also had to educate the Indians in order to communicate with them In that way the Indians began to encounter words and ideas that were unmentioned in their ancestral culture: "liberty," "sovereignty," "rights," and so on. That brings me to the greatest benefit that the British provided to the Indians: They taught them the language of freedom. The Indian leaders were the product of Western civilization. Gandhi studied in England and South Africa; Nehru was a product of Harrow and Cambridge the champions of Indian independence acquired the principles, the language, and even the strategies of liberation from the civilization of their oppressors the colonialists brought things to India that have immeasurably enriched the lives of the descendants of colonialism It is doubtful that non-Western countries would have acquired those good things by themselves. There is no reason to believe that the Indians, who had practiced suttee for centuries, would have reached such a conclusion on their own Colonialism was the transmission belt that brought to Asia, Africa, and South America the blessings of Western civilization. Many of those cultures continue to have serious problems of tyranny, tribal and religious conflict, poverty, and underdevelopment, but that is not due to an excess of Western influence; rather, it is due to the fact that those countries are insufficiently Westernized
|
Colonialism is a medium which brings human rights and destroys tyranny in the country
| 3,737 | 85 | 1,889 | 599 | 14 | 291 | 0.023372 | 0.48581 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,792 |
Hence, some authors claim that globalization is “not a choice [but] a reality,” which has to be ¶ accepted because it is here to stay and even question whether it means the end to geography ¶ (Friedman 2000). It has brought about the “flattening of the world” (Friedman 2006). Others, ¶ however dispute the flattening of the world and point out that more than 90% of investments are ¶ still domestic, only 2% of the telephone calls are international, 95% of the university students ¶ study in their home country, and there is little evidence of salary convergence across countries ¶ that could be expected if the world was really flat and the frontiers would be irrelevant ¶ (Ghemawat 2007). Yet, according to most observers it is the cause of outcomes in many spheres ¶ from production processes to public policies; as well as changes in areas such as culture, the ¶ environment, transnational cooperation, or migration patterns.
|
Royo 2009 (Sebastian Royo is associate dean and professor of government at Suffolk University in Boston, and director of the Suffolk University Madrid Campus.) (November 2009 “Varieties of Capitalism for Latin America” http://www6.miami.edu/eucenter/publications/royovarcapitallalong09edi.pdf)
|
globalization is “not a choice [but] a reality,” which has to be ¶ accepted because it is here to stay and even question whether it means the end to geography ¶ ). It has brought about the “flattening of the world” according to most observers it is the cause of outcomes in many spheres ¶ from production processes to public policies; as well as changes in areas such as culture, the ¶ environment, transnational cooperation, or migration patterns.
|
No alt solvency – globalization inevitable
| 930 | 42 | 448 | 158 | 6 | 78 | 0.037975 | 0.493671 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,793 |
The simple definition of globalization is the interweaving of markets, technology, information systems, and telecommunications networks in a way that is shrinking the world from a size medium to a size small. It began decades ago, but accelerated dramatically over the past 10 years, as the price of computing power fell and the world became an ever-more densely interconnected place. People resist this shift — see, for example, the G8 protests of 2001 (one of the bloodiest uprisings in recent European history) or the recent rioting in Pittsburgh at this year’s G20 conference—because they think it primarily benefits big business elites to the detriment of everyone else. But globalization didn’t ruin the world—it just flattened it. And on balance that can benefit everyone, especially the poor. Globalization has pulled millions of people out of poverty in India and China, and multiplied the size of the global middle class. It has raised the global standard of living faster than that at any other time in the history of the world, and it is supporting astounding growth. All world economic activity was valued at $7 trillion in 1950. That’s equal to how much growth took place over just the past decade, even including the recent downturn. Whatever people’s fears of change, globalization is here to stay—and, if properly managed, it will be a good thing.
|
Friedman No Date (Thomas Loren Friedman is an American journalist, columnist and author. He writes a twice-weekly column for The New York Times.) (“Globalization” http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/most-overblown-fears/globalization.html)
|
The simple definition of globalization is the interweaving of markets, technology, information systems, and telecommunications networks in a way that is shrinking the world from a size medium to a size small. globalization didn’t ruin the world And on balance that can benefit everyone, especially the poor. Globalization has pulled millions of people out of poverty Whatever people’s fears of change, globalization is here to stay—and, if properly managed, it will be a good thing.
|
Globalization is inevitable and good
| 1,364 | 37 | 482 | 223 | 5 | 75 | 0.022422 | 0.336323 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,794 |
If "post-colonial" theory has sought to challenge the grand march of ¶ western historicism with its entourage of binaries (self-other, metropolis- ¶ colony, center-periphery, etc.), the term "post-colonialism" nonetheless ¶ re-orients the globe once more around a single, binary opposition: colo- ¶ nial/ post-colonial. Moreover, theory is thereby shifted from the binary ¶ axis of power (colonizer/colonized - itself inadequately nuanced, as in ¶ the case of women) to the binary axis of time, an axis even less productive ¶ of political nuance since it does not distinguish between the beneficiaries of colonialism (the ex-colonizers) and the casualties of colonialism (the ¶ ex-colonized). The "post-colonial scene" occurs in an entranced suspen- ¶ sion of history, as if the definitive historical events have preceded us, and ¶ are not now in the making. If the theory promises a decentering of history ¶ in hybridity, syncreticism, multi-dimensional time, and so forth, the sin- ¶ gularity of the term effects a re-centering of global history around the ¶ single rubric of European time. Colonialism returns at the moment of its ¶ disappearance. ¶ The word "post," moreover, reduces the cultures of peoples beyond ¶ colonialism to prepositional time. The term confers on colonialism the ¶ prestige of history proper; colonialism is the determining marker of his- ¶ tory. Other cultures share only a chronological, prepositional relation to ¶ a Euro-centered epoch that is over (post-), or not yet begun (pre-). In other ¶ words, the world's multitudinous cultures are marked, not positively by ¶ what distinguishes them, but by a subordinate, retrospective relation to ¶ linear, European time. ¶ The term also signals a reluctance to surrender the privilege of seeing ¶ the world in terms of a singular and ahistorical abstraction. Rifling ¶ through the recent flurry of articles and books on "post-colonialism," I ¶ am struck by how seldom the term is used to denote multiplicity. The ¶ following proliferate: "the post-colonial condition," the post-colonial ¶ scene," "the post-colonial intellectual," "the emerging disciplinary space ¶ of post-colonialism," "post-coloniality," "the post-colonial situation," ¶ "post-colonial space," "the practice of postcoloniality," "post-colonial ¶ discourse," and that most tedious, generic hold-all: "the post-colonial ¶ Other." ¶ I am not convinced that one of the most important emerging areas of ¶ intellectual and political enquiry is best served by inscribing history as a ¶ single issue. Just as the singular category "Woman" has been discredited ¶ as a bogus universal for feminism, incapable of distinguishing between ¶ the varied histories and imbalances in power among women, so the singu- ¶ lar category "post-colonial" may license too readily a panoptic tendency ¶ to view the globe within generic abstractions voided of political nuance. ¶ The arcing panorama of the horizon becomes thereby so expansive that ¶ international imbalances in power remain effectively blurred. Historically ¶ voided categories such as "the other," "the signifier," "the signified," "the ¶ subject," "the phallus," "the postcolonial," while having academic clout ¶ and professional marketability, run the risk of telescoping crucial geo-po- ¶ litical distinctions into invisibility. ¶ The authors of the recent book The Empire Writes Back, for example, ¶ defend the term "post-colonial literature" on three grounds: it "focuses on ¶ that relationship which has provided the most important creative and ¶ psychological impetus in the writing"; it expresses the "rationale of the ¶ grouping in a common past," and it "hints at the vision of a more liberated and positive future."3 Yet the inscription of history around a single "con- ¶ tinuity of preoccupations" and "a common past," runs the risk of a ¶ fetishistic disavowal of crucial international distinctions that are barely ¶ understood and inadequately theorized. Moreover, the authors decided, ¶ idiosyncratically to say the least, that the term "post-colonialism" should ¶ not be understood as everything that has happened since European colo- ¶ nialism, but rather everything that has happened from the very beginning ¶ of colonialism, which means turning back the clocks and unrolling the ¶ maps of "post-colonialism" to 1492, and earlier.4 Whereupon, at a stroke, ¶ Henry James and Charles Brockden Brown, to name only two on their list, ¶ are awakened from their tete-a-tete with time, and ushered into "the ¶ post-colonial scene" alongside more regular members like Ngugi Wa ¶ Thiongo and Salman Rushdie. ¶
|
McClintock 1992 (Anne McClintock is the Simone de Beauvoir Professor of English and Women's and Gender Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison) (“The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term "Post-Colonialism", http://www.ffyh.unc.edu.ar/posgrado/cursos/rufer/McClintock.pdf)
|
.), the term "post-colonialism" re-orients the globe once more around a single, binary opposition: colo- ¶ nial/ post-colonial. theory is thereby shifted from the binary ¶ axis of power to the binary axis of time, ess productive ¶ of political nuance since it does not distinguish between the beneficiaries of colonialism and the casualties of colonialism The "post-colonial scene" occurs in an entranced suspen- ¶ sion of history, as if the definitive historical events have preceded us Colonialism returns at the moment of its ¶ disappearance. ¶ The word "post," moreover, reduces the cultures of peoples beyond ¶ colonialism to prepositional time. ¶ I am not convinced that one of the most important emerging areas of ¶ intellectual and political enquiry is best served by inscribing history as a ¶ single issue the singu- ¶ lar category "post-colonial" may license too readily a panoptic tendency ¶ to view the globe within generic abstractions voided of political nuance. ¶ Historically ¶ voided categories such as "the other," "the signifier," "the signified," "the ¶ subject," "the phallus," "the postcolonial," while having academic clout ¶ and professional marketability, run the risk of telescoping crucial geo-po- ¶ litical distinctions into invisibility the inscription of history around a single "con- ¶ tinuity of preoccupations" and "a common past," runs the risk of a ¶ fetishistic disavowal of crucial international distinctions that are barely ¶ understood and inadequately theorized
|
There is no chance of breaking down “post-colonial binaries” – even their authors try to exploit their work for profits
| 4,607 | 119 | 1,501 | 714 | 20 | 233 | 0.028011 | 0.326331 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,795 |
Most problematically, the historical rupture suggested by the preposi- ¶ tion "post-" belies both the continuities and discontinuities of power that ¶ have shaped the legacies of the formal European and British colonial ¶ empires (not to mention the Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, and other impe- ¶ rial powers). Political differences between cultures are thereby subordi- ¶ nated to their temporal distance from European colonialism. But ¶ "post-colonialism" (like postmodernism) is unevenly developed globally. ¶ Argentina, formally independent of imperial Spain for over a century and ¶ a half, is not "post-colonial" in the same way as Hong Kong (destined to ¶ be independent of Britain only in 1997). Nor is Brazil "post-colonial" in ¶ the same way as Zimbabwe. Can most of the world's countries be said, in ¶ any meaningful or theoretically rigorous sense, to share a single "common ¶ past," or a single common "condition," called "the post-colonial condi- ¶ tion," or "post-coloniality"? The histories of African colonization are ¶ certainly, in part, the histories of the collisions between European and ¶ Arab empires, and the myriad African lineage states and cultures. Can ¶ these countries now best be understood as shaped exclusively around the ¶ "common" experience of European colonization? Indeed, many contem- ¶ porary African, Latin American, Caribbean, and Asian cultures, while ¶ profoundly effected by colonization, are not necessarily primarily preoc- ¶ cupied with their erstwhile contact with Europe. ¶ On the other hand, the term "post-colonialism" is, in many cases, ¶ prematurely celebratory. Ireland may, at a pinch, be "post-colonial," but ¶ for the inhabitants of British-occupied Northern Ireland, not to mention ¶ the Palestinian inhabitants of the Israeli Occupied Territories and the ¶ West Bank, there may be nothing "post" about colonialism at all. Is South ¶ Africa "post-colonial"? East Timor? Australia? By what fiat of historical ¶ amnesia can the United States of America, in particular, qualify as "post- ¶ colonial" - a term which can only be a monumental affront to the Native ¶ American peoples currently opposing the confetti triumphalism of 1992. ¶ One can also ask whether the emergence of Fortress Europe in 1992 may not signal the emergence of a new empire, as yet uncertain about the ¶ frontiers of its boundaries and global reach.
|
McClintock 1992 (Anne McClintock is the Simone de Beauvoir Professor of English and Women's and Gender Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison) (“The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term "Post-Colonialism", http://www.ffyh.unc.edu.ar/posgrado/cursos/rufer/McClintock.pdf)
|
post-colonialism ) is unevenly developed globally. ¶ Argentina, formally independent of imperial Spain for over a century and ¶ a half, is not "post-colonial" in the same way as Hong Kong ). Nor is Brazil "post-colonial" in ¶ the same way as Zimbabwe. the term "post-colonialism" is, prematurely celebratory Ireland may, at a pinch, be "post-colonial," but ¶ for the inhabitants of British-occupied Northern Ireland, not to mention ¶ the Palestinian inhabitants of the Israeli Occupied Territories and the ¶ West Bank, there may be nothing "post" about colonialism at all. what fiat of historical ¶ amnesia can the United States of America, in particular, qualify as "post- ¶ colonial" - a term which can only be a monumental affront to the Native ¶ American peoples currently opposing the confetti triumphalism of 1992.
|
There is no concrete way to define “post-colonialism”
| 2,379 | 53 | 820 | 377 | 8 | 133 | 0.02122 | 0.352785 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,796 |
Washington, DC – International relief and development organization Oxfam America praised new policies that are pushing the US government to invest more in locally defined development priorities, as they have already demonstrated to achieve more sustainable results in the fight against poverty. Oxfam America also urged US policymakers to support the reform agenda and solidify the transformation to a recipient-led approach to development.¶ In new survey findings released today for an upcoming report entitled Quiet Renaissance: How reforms are making America a better partner in the fight against poverty, Oxfam outlined how US foreign assistance reforms are going in the right direction, and underscores that they are being well received. The findings were released at a Washington, DC event featuring USAID Administrator Raj Shah, Malawi Health Network Executive Director Martha Kwaitane, and moderated by Kojo Nnamdi, host of WAMU 88.5’s The Kojo Nnamdi Show.¶ "Our findings clearly show what we’ve known for years: that development depends on the choices and actions of people in developing countries themselves, not on donors,” said Paul O’Brien, vice-president of policy and campaigns at Oxfam America. “It’s great to see the US government is recognizing that there’s tremendous value in the power of local people to decide how aid is spent, and how to execute and lead their own development efforts in partnership with the US.”¶ “America is a better partner now because foreign assistance is more focused on empowering citizens to tackle problems of poverty and health themselves,” said Kwaitaine, who attended the report launch in Washington, DC.¶ Oxfam’s report draws on extensive field interviews that Oxfam America conducted with citizens, civil society representatives, businesspeople and public officials in US aid recipient countries including Bangladesh, Ghana, Malawi, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, and Senegal. Key findings from the report include:¶ 83% of survey respondents said the US is aligning better with national government plans.¶ 75% said the US is aligning better with the needs of people in countries.¶ 77% of stakeholders said that their interactions with the US have improved too.¶ 73% percent of survey respondents noticed an increase in US capacity building efforts in their country.¶ 86% of survey respondents said direct assistance to local civil society and governments would be much more helpful in their efforts to achieve development outcomes¶ Oxfam’s survey did find some frustration among recipients in that from their perspective, the US government is often moving too slowly to implement this reform.¶ Oxfam America offered a number of recommendations in the report, including increasing two-way information sharing with stakeholders and partners at all stages of the development process, continuing to invest in strengthening recipient country public institutions, including through budget support, to strengthen accountability and responsiveness, and expanding investments in democracy, governance and accountability though civil society groups and take stronger action to bring civil society voices into the development process at all levels.¶ “The US government is showing that it is relearning the lesson of leveraging local leadership,” continued O’Brien. “But it’s time for the US to accelerate and deepen these reforms in order to maximize its contribution to the fight against poverty.”
|
Rusu 4/11/13 (Laura Rusu is the Policy and Campaign Media manager for OXFAM) (“US aid reforms making a difference in developing countries” http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/us-aid-reforms-making-a-difference-in-developing-countries)
|
International relief and development organization praised new policies that are pushing the US government to invest more in locally defined development priorities, as they have already demonstrated to achieve more sustainable results in the fight against poverty. Our findings clearly show what we’ve known for years: that development depends on the choices and actions of people in developing countries themselves, not on donors,” It’s great to see the US government is recognizing that there’s tremendous value in the power of local people to decide how aid is spent, and how to execute and lead their own development efforts in partnership with the US.”¶ “America is a better partner now because foreign assistance is more focused on empowering citizens to tackle problems of poverty and health themselves, 83% of survey respondents said the US is aligning better with national government plans.¶ 75% said the US is aligning better with the needs of people in countries.¶ 77% of stakeholders said that their interactions with the US have improved too.¶ 73% percent of survey respondents noticed an increase in US capacity building efforts in their country.¶ 86% of survey respondents said direct assistance to local civil society and governments would be much more helpful in their efforts to achieve development outcomes¶ The US government is showing that it is relearning the lesson of leveraging local leadership, “But it’s time for the US to accelerate and deepen these reforms in order to maximize its contribution to the fight against poverty.”
|
More action is needed to fight the war on poverty – the plan does that by engaging with Latin America
| 3,442 | 101 | 1,553 | 514 | 20 | 246 | 0.038911 | 0.478599 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,797 |
The Washington Consensus Was Not Made in Washington¶ Let me start then with the background and the genesis of Latin American reforms. In 1993 a Washington-based think-tank economist called John Williamson announced the birth of what he called the Washington consensus. A few months ago, John Williamson, in Milan, Italy, announced the death of the Washington consensus. I think it was quite efficient and effective that it was the same person who announced both the birth and death, and that there was a decade in between, so it was a solid decade of the Washington consensus.¶ Both announcements were a great exaggeration and were really not taking seriously the texture and the granularity that Latin America has as a region. The Washington consensus for those of you who may not remember what it was, was the name that was given to the economic reforms that started being implemented in Latin America at the end of the 1980s. The term has become extremely popular among the media and in particular among the critics of the reforms. John Williamson coined this phrase because he was putting together the introduction to a volume that had a number of papers that had been presented at a conference that he had organized. There were a group of us including myself having a beer at some bar in Washington and John said, well, I'll call this the Washington consensus since the conference was in Washington. And then on a napkin he wrote down the ten particular commandments, as it came to be known. But basically the ten most important characteristics of the Washington consensus.¶ And from there on this notion acquired a life of its own. The economic reforms in Latin America were implemented during the late 1980s in some countries, and throughout the first three quarters of the 1990s throughout all of the region. These were economic reforms that moved Latin America toward capitalism and a market orientation and globalization. And the notion that followed the reforms was that behind the Washington consensus was that these reforms had been dictated from Washington, that they had been thought up and were the brainchild of the multilateral institutions: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury. It was believed that these three institutions had imposed these reforms on the Latin American countries. Anyone who knows anything about Latin America or about economic reform or about the multilateral institutions or about the bureaucracy or about Washington knows that that is not true. It is the greatest simplification that we have seen in the history of ideas on economic reform in emerging markets in the last, I would say, twenty to thirty years.¶ The reforms in Latin America were the brainchild of Latin American economists. They were designed in some countries, implemented at a speed that astounded the bureaucrats in Washington, and in many cases they were implemented in spite of the strong opposition of the World Bank, the IMF, and the U.S. Treasury.¶ The Reforms Were Invented in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile¶ The Latin American reforms were the result of a reaction, in Mexico, in Argentina, and in Chile, to the incredibly ineffective stage at which the previous Latin American economic model had arrived. They were based on very simple ideas that, as I said, were much more audacious than anything that any bureaucrat at that time would have thought in Washington.¶ The IMF, for instance, strongly and in writing opposed the privatization of social security in Chile. The IMF and the Treasury strongly opposed, and in fact opposed until very late in the game, the currency board that tied Argentina's currency, the peso, to the dollar in a one-to-one exchange rate. And the World Bank and the IMF were extremely nervous about Mexico's move toward a free trade agreement with the U.S., and Mexico's very fast liberalization of international trade and opening up to the world in 1985-86 through 1988. Because by lowering import duties Mexico was opening itself to running a larger fiscal deficit, as import duties collect large amounts of revenue for the government.¶ So you have there three fundamental aspects of the Latin American reform that were not only not thought of or invented or were not the brainchild of the bureaucracy in Washington, but they were opposed by them and had been thought of by the Latin American economists.¶ The reforms began as an experiment in a few countries, mostly in Argentina after the hyperinflation of 1989 and in Mexico after the big economic crisis of 1982 and then the crisis of 1988, after a decade of stagnation, the so-called lost decade of Latin America in the 1980s. The reforms were started to move away from an incredible bureaucracy and to control rates of inflation that those of you who have not lived in countries with these kinds of inflation cannot imagine. Argentina in 1989 had a rate of inflation of 30,000 percent per year. You cannot imagine what that is, 30,000 percent inflation. Not 30, not 300, not 3,000, but 30,000. Shops and supermarkets did not open in the morning to customers because they were afraid that while they were selling a product its price would double, triple, or quadruple and then they would not be able to restock their inventories. As a result of that you had most stores close for long periods of time, and that of course incited riots and other social problems.¶ In reaction to that kind of situation, three or four Latin American countries started moving toward a market orientation, globalization, and the reforms. It was the turning point. The question we have to ask ourselves is, if it was not the Washington bureaucracy, if it was not the U.S. Treasury, if these forces did not impose the reforms, why is it that 32 countries to one extent or another adopted them? The first thing that I said is that there is an incredible granularity and diversity in Latin America, going from Haiti or the Dominican Republic -- the home of the best baseball players in the world -- the two countries that share Hispaniola, which are very small countries, all the way to Argentina and Brazil, which are soccer countries and very large countries and very different.¶ So how can we explain that there was this generalized adoption of all these reforms? The reason is, I think, that there were three particular turning points in Latin America. The first one was the fall of the Berlin Wall [November 1989], and I will not expand on that. The second one was Felipe Gonzalez in Spain. Gonzalez, the leader of the PSOE, the socialist party in Spain, had campaigned against Spain joining NATO [before his party was elected to rule in 1982]. And one of the first things he does when he gets to government is to say, we are going to join NATO. The political backlash was such that he had to call a referendum [in March 1986] with respect to whether Spain should join NATO or not. And Felipe Gonzalez, turning toward Europe, turning towards modernity, turning towards freer markets, trying to implement some reforms in Spain, was very important for these countries in Latin America that had, of course, a long-standing cultural and historical relation with Spain, to actually move in that direction.¶ And the third reason why these reforms that had started in three or four countries independently became so massive in every country in Latin America, and the most important reason in my view, was the return of democracy in Chile after 17 years of dictatorship. (At the end, of course, Washington and the multilateral agencies did sign on to the reforms and sort of made them their own and tried to work with the countries in implementing them.)
|
Edwards 2003 (Sebastian Edwards is the Henry Ford II Professor of International Business Economics at the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA) (May 28th 2003 “A Defense of Latin America’s Free Market Reforms”, http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=4026)
|
The Washington consensus was the name that was given to the economic reforms that started being implemented in Latin America The economic reforms in Latin America were implemented These were economic reforms that moved Latin America toward capitalism and a market orientation and globalization. Anyone who knows anything about Latin America or about economic reform or about the multilateral institutions or about the bureaucracy or about Washington knows that that is not true. It is the greatest simplification that we have seen in the history of ideas on economic reform in emerging markets The reforms in Latin America were the brainchild of Latin American economists. They were designed in some countries, implemented at a speed that astounded Washington The Reforms Were Invented in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile¶ The Latin American reforms were the result of a reaction, in Mexico, in Argentina, and in Chile, to the incredibly ineffective stage at which the previous Latin American economic model had arrived. They were based on very simple ideas that were much more audacious than anything that any bureaucrat at that time would have thought in Washington The IMF, for instance, strongly and in writing opposed the privatization of social security in Chile. The IMF and the Treasury strongly opposed, and in fact opposed until very late in the game, the currency board that tied Argentina's currency, the peso, to the dollar in a one-to-one exchange rate. And the World Bank and the IMF were extremely nervous about Mexico's move toward a free trade agreement with the U.S., and Mexico's very fast liberalization of international trade and opening up to the world So you have there three fundamental aspects of the Latin American reform that were not only not thought of or invented or were not the brainchild of the bureaucracy in Washington, but they were opposed by them and had been thought of by the Latin American economists. As a result of that you had most stores close for long periods of time, and that of course incited riots and other social problems.¶ In reaction to that kind of situation, three or four Latin American countries started moving toward a market orientation, globalization, and the reforms. It was the turning point. The question we have to ask ourselves is, if it was not the Washington bureaucracy, if it was not the U.S. Treasury, if these forces did not impose the reforms, why is it that 32 countries to one extent or another adopted them? .¶ So how can we explain that there was this generalized adoption of all these reforms? here were three particular turning points in Latin America. The first one was the fall of the Berlin Wall The second one was Felipe Gonzalez in Spain. The political backlash was such that he had to call a referendum with respect to whether Spain should join NATO or not. And Felipe Gonzalez turning towards modernity, turning towards freer markets, trying to implement some reforms in Spain, was very important for these countries in Latin America And the third reason why these reforms that had started in three or four countries independently became so massive in every country in Latin America, and the most important reason in my view, was the return of democracy
|
Economic reforms aren’t rooted in neocolonial control in Latin America – Reforms were crafted by Latin American economists
| 7,661 | 122 | 3,236 | 1,299 | 18 | 541 | 0.013857 | 0.416474 |
Development Kritik Affirmative Answers - Northwestern 2013 4WeekSeniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Kritik Answers
|
2013
|
4,798 |
Rather than maintaining the status quo, the US should simultaneously pursue two forms of engagement with Cuba. First, it should actively seek out Castro’s willingness to engage in a conditional relationship and to chart a course towards more satisfactory relations. It should attempt to strike a dialogue with Castro in which reasonable benefits are offered to him in return for reasonable changes. Rather than accentuating the desire for a regime change or immediate democratic elections, US policy-makers should make lesser goals the focus of their policy, as the more ambitious the demands, the less likely Castro is to enter into a process of engagement. For instance, the release of political prisoners and the legitimisation of political parties might be offered in exchange for the selected lifting of elements of the embargo. Regardless of Castro’s reaction to such an approach, benefits would accrue to the United States. If Castro accepted this dialogue, US policy would be seen as pushing forward real political liberalisation on the island; if Castro rejected these attempts, America would still ease tensions with its European allies by demonstrating it was willing to take a more flexible line towards Cuba. Second, while pursuing what conditional engagement is possible under Castro, unconditional engagement can be undertaken and expanded. The recent easing of certain restrictions in the hopes of building ties between the United States and Cuba at the civic level is laudable. Additional air links and liberalised travel restrictions can help temper the negative image of America held by many younger Cubans, and to cultivate outward-looking segments of Cuban society. Both groups will be influential in determining future levels of cooperation between the United States and Cuba once Castro is gone. The United States should also expand unconditional engagement of the economic variety; such a low-risk strategy can gradually promote internal changes as Cubans benefit from new economic opportunities. The Clinton administration has already authorised increased levels of allowable remittances and expanded trade with non-government entities. However, these changes do not go far enough. There should be no ceiling on the amount of remittances which Cuban families can receive from relatives living in the US. Moreover, even if Castro resists conditional engagement that could be linked to the gradual easing of the embargo, US policy-makers should consider ways in which investment codes could replace elements of the embargo. The possibility of employing investment codes that allow for American trade with, and investment in, Cuban entities meeting specific conditions concerning ownership structure and labour rights should be explored.14 Given the paucity of privately owned businesses in Cuba today, the instant effects of such codes in boosting trade and investment would probably be minimal. However, the employment of investment codes – in place of more blanked restrictions – would offer immediate psychological support, as well as tangible incentives for growth, to Cuba’s struggling private sector.
|
Richard N. Haass and Meghan L. O’Sullivan, former senior aide to Bush, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings AND a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at Brookings, Summer 2k, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies,” Survival, vol. 42, no. 2 //BW
|
, it should actively seek out Castro’s willingness to engage in a conditional relationship reasonable benefits are offered in return for changes US policy-makers should make lesser goals the focus the release of political prisoners and the legitimisation of political parties for the selected lifting of elements of the embargo. Regardless of Castro’s reaction benefits would accrue to the United States. If Castro accepted US would be seen as pushing forward real political liberalisation if Castro rejected America would still ease tensions with its European allies by demonstrating it was willing to take a more flexible line Additional air links and liberalised travel restrictions can help temper the negative image of America held by many younger Cubans, and to cultivate outward-looking segments of Cuban society. United States should also expand unconditional engagement of the economic variety promote internal changes as Cubans benefit from new economic opportunities. these changes do not go far enough. There should be no ceiling on the amount of remittances investment codes could replace the embargo allow for American trade with, and investment in, Cuban entities meeting specific conditions concerning ownership structure and labour rights vestment codes – in place of more blanked restrictions – would offer immediate psychological support, as well as tangible incentives for growth, to Cuba’s private sector.
|
Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement towards Cuba by lifting restrictions on trade.
| 3,129 | 143 | 1,426 | 474 | 19 | 214 | 0.040084 | 0.451477 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,799 |
The best potential candidates for conditional engagement are often those countries where decision making is the most concentrated. Promising partners in engagement must not only be willing to commit their governments to undertake a contractual relationship, but must be to do so as well. This distinction, while having little relevance for relations with US allies whose populations expect and generally support cooperation with the United States, is an important one when addressing engagement with ‘rogues’ or other problem regimes. The fact that some regimes may be willing, but not able, to cooperate with the West implies that certain types of regimes do make better candidates for engagement than others. For instance, the authoritarian nature of a regime can often facilitate engagement, rather than thwart it. The strong position of Brezhnev was a key factor in delivering the achievements of limited US–Soviet cooperation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Having consolidated his power, Brezhnev was able to control internal criticism and challenges to détente. In short, the strong position of the Soviet leader eliminated many uncertainties inherent in negotiating with other types of regimes; if Nixon and Kissinger could develop an agreement appealing to Brezhnev, they could be confident that it would not fall prey to internal squabbling during its implementation – at least on the Soviet side.
|
Richard N. Haass and Meghan L. O’Sullivan, former senior aide to Bush, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings AND a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at Brookings, Summer 2k, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies,” Survival, vol. 42, no. 2 //BW
|
The best candidates for conditional engagement countries where decision making is the most concentrated. partners in engagement must not only be willing to commit their governments but must be to do so as well is important when addressing engagement with ‘rogues’ or other problem regimes. the authoritarian nature of a regime can often facilitate engagement The strong position of Brezhnev was a key factor in delivering the achievements of limited US–Soviet cooperation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Having consolidated his power, Brezhnev was able to control internal criticism and challenges to détente liminated many uncertainties inherent in negotiating with other types of regimes; if Nixon and Kissinger could develop an agreement appealing to Brezhnev, they could be confident that it would not fall prey to internal squabbling
|
Engagement solves authoritarian regimes best – concentrated decision making power
| 1,410 | 81 | 841 | 218 | 10 | 129 | 0.045872 | 0.591743 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.