spending disadvantage - gmu 2013

George Mason 2012-13[File Name] [Name]

Spending DA ndash GMU Spending DA ndash GMU1 Shell3Spending DA ndash 1NC4 Uniqueness Debate7UQ ndash Econ High8UQ ndash Econ High ndash Stocks11UQ ndash Brink12UQ ndash No Deficit Spending Now13UQ ndash No Spending Now14UQ ndash Deficit Decreasing Now15 Link Debate17Link ndash Cuba ndash BizCon18Link ndash EE ndash Generic20Link ndash EE ndash Pork Barrel21Link ndash Energy ndash Deficit $22Link ndash FA ndash Deficit $23Link ndash Trade ndash Deficit $24 Internal Link Debate26IL ndash Deficit Spending27IL ndash Pork Barrel30IL ndash AT Keynesian Good32 Impact Debate37MPX ndash War38MPX ndash AT US Not K2 Global ECON39MPX ndash Poverty41 AFF Answers43NU ndash Economy Low44NU ndash Spending Low45AC ndash QE46Keynes Good47No Link ndash FA50AT Biz Con51AT Impact ndash ECON Decline Doesnrsquot =gt War52AT Impact ndash ECON Resilient53Turn ndash War54Turn ndash Trade Bad56

1


2


Shell

3


Spending DA ndash 1NC Uniqueness ndash the economy is recovering but itrsquos on the brink ndash people are still adjusting to Fed policyHwang reporter for Bloomberg 625 2013 (Inyoung US Stocks Rebound From Nine-Week Low on Economic Data Bloomberg httpwwwbloombergcomnews2013-06-25u-s-stock-futures-gain-indicating-s-p-500-reboundhtml MWH)

US stocks rose as the Standard amp Poorrsquos 500 Index (SPX) rebounded from a nine-week low after data showed durable-good orders and home sales increased more than forecast and consumer confidence climbed para PulteGroup Inc (PHM) rallied 39 percent as an index of homebuilders jumped 11 percent JPMorgan Chase amp Co and Bank of America Corp gained at least 23 percent as financial companies advanced Walgreen Co sank 59 percent after posting quarterly profit that missed estimates Netflix Inc (NFLX) slid 13 percent after Sanford C Bernstein amp Co cut its rating on the company to underperformpara

The SampP 500 climbed 1 percent to 158803 in New York The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 10075 points or 07 percent to 1476031 todaypara ldquoPeople are still digesting the news from the Fed making mental adjustments for different levels of interest rates and what those might imply for securitiesrsquo prices over the next several quartersrdquo John Carey a fund manager at Boston-based Pioneer Investment Management Inc said by telephone His firm oversees about $208 billion ldquoIrsquom encouraged the market has stabilized a little hererdquopara US equities climbed today as the Conference Boardrsquos index of US consumer confidence increased to 814 in June from 743 a month earlier Another report showed bookings for US goods meant to last at least three years climbed 36 percent for a second month topping economist forecasts para Separate data showed sales of new US homes climbed more than forecast in May to the highest level in almost five years while home prices increased more than forecast in the 12 months through April

Link ndash Economic engagement involves spendingHelen V Milner and Dustin H Tingley- 2011(Who Supports Global Economic Engagement The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy Pg 49 httpwwwprincetonedu~hmilnerforthcoming20papersMilnerTingley20(2011)20Who20Supports20Global20Economic20) S

For foreign aid the president also needs congressional approval since thispara involves taxing and spending + Congress must agree to the presidentrsquos proposals topara appropriate and then allocate funds for foreign aid each year+ Unlike in trade aidpara appropriations are usually part of a much larger foreign operations bill which contains spending for all forms of international activity in the federal government+para House committees amend the presidentrsquos proposals and then these bills may facepara amendments on the House floor+ We focus on these amendments since they give apara clearer picture of preferences for aid alone

C Impact ndash Deficit spending causes economic declineRob Nichols- 2013 -the president and chief operating officer of the Financial Services Forum- (Financial Services Forum American Banker httpwwwfinancialservicesforumorgindexphp) S

Given current Congressional Budget Office projections there is reason to conclude that unless significant structural changes are made to balance revenues with spending the US will probably approach a point where global market sentiment regarding the nations fiscal condition could change abruptly for the worsepara This would make corrective action far more urgent and painful than if such steps were taken in the near termpara Failure to meaningfully address the nations fiscal circumstances raises the prospect of dangers that could hurt the US economy Principal among these is the risk that investors could demand higher risk premiums when buying US government debtpara At the current elevated debt tally rising interest rates could quickly compound an already challenging fiscal situation Moreover given that Treasury bills and bonds

4


are the basis for borrowing structures in private credit markets the effect of burgeoning government debt on the cost of capital economic growth and job creation would be far-reaching and decidedly negativepara Given the probable impact of higher rates on US economic prospects another risk associated with further deterioration in the nations debt position is that investors may sour on dollar-denominated assetspara The dollars relative value would fall undermining Americans purchasing power and standard of living A falling dollar also has dangerous implications for inflationpara Finally further deterioration in the nations debt position would probably be associated with greater financial market instabilitypara The threshold beyond which investors would demand higher real yields for holding US debt or flee from dollar-denominated assets is not obvious This inherent uncertainty has tended to make fiscal discipline seem less urgent or easier to postponepara Research by Ken Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland reveals that throughout history in advanced and emerging nations alike debt-to-GDP levels surpassing 90 are strongly associated with notably slower economic growth more frequent and severe financial crises higher inflation and overall economic decline Americas debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to surpass 90 this yearpara Some analysts argue that the United States position in the global economy is unique and therefore conventional debt metrics that might signal trouble for other countries simply do not apply It is true that the US still enjoys a favored position in the global economy but it is not immune to economic decline para The trajectories of former historical powers make clear that failure to achieve fiscal sustainability increases the risk of financial instability Unless we as a nation make a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth

Economic collapse causes global nuclear warMerlini Senior Fellow ndash Brookings 11[Cesare Merlini nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome He served as IAI president from 1979 to 2001 Until 2009 he also occupied the position of executive vice chairman of the Council for the United States and Italy which he co-founded in 1983 His areas of expertise include transatlantic relations European integration and nuclear non-proliferation with particular focus on nuclear science and technology A Post-Secular World DOI 101080003963382011571015 Article Requests Order Reprints Request Permissions Published in journal Survival Volume 53 Issue 2 April 2011 pages 117 - 130 Publication Frequency 6 issues per year Download PDF Download PDF (~357 KB) View Related Articles To cite this Article Merlini Cesare A Post-Secular World Survival 532 117 ndash 130]

Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities albeit at the risk of oversimplification The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system the vulnerability of which we have just experienced and the prospect of a second Great Depression with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first Whatever the trigger the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified emptying perhaps entirely the half-full glass of multilateralism including the UN and the European Union Many of the more likely conflicts such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan have potential religious dimensions Short of war tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated One way or another the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism

5


6


Uniqueness Debate

7


UQ ndash Econ High US stocks breaking more records- the economy is doing wellDieterich 7-11 2013 (Chris Covering stocks and ETFs for The Wall Street Journal in New York Stocks Surge Into Record Terrain Wall Street Journal JH httponlinewsjcomarticleSB10001424127887324425204578599172822776806htmlmod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)

Signals that the Federal Reserve will keep its easy-money policies in place for the long haul energized investors across the globe and sent US stock indexes soaring to all-time highs The spark came from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke who said late Wednesday that the economy still needs highly accommodative monetary policy for the foreseeable future US stock futures bolted higher after Wednesdays closing bell triggering overnight advances in Asia and Europe and ultimately big gains on Wall Street Thursday Mr Bernankes comments also prompted a selloff in the dollar a decline in Treasury yields and a rise in gold prices Both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Standard amp Poors 500-stock index closed at records The blue chips climbed 16926 points or 11 to 1546092

US economy increasing steadily- markets and investors driving it upRudarakanchana 7-10 2013 (Nat US Economic Snapshot Itrsquos all Good When It Comes To Executive Expectations CEO Confidence And Salary Increases International Business Times JH httpwwwibtimescomus-economic-snapshot-its-all-good-when-it-comes-executive-expectations-ceo-confidence-salary-1340391)

The economy executives and markets in the United States augur steady improvements in the nations economy over the coming six months according to a trio of reports released on Wednesday About 40 percent of business executives surveyed hailed North America as a top market for corporate mergers and acquisitions in 2013 according to a Deloitte LLP reportpara And almost 70 percent of those executives expect the US economy to continue its gradual improvements throughout this year the report notes Deloitte polled more than 1800 professionals in an online May 2013 pollpara Meanwhile confidence among CEOs saw boosts for the third consecutive quarter with 60 percent of respondents perceiving better economic conditions than six months ago according to nonprofit business association the Conference Board Thatrsquos up from 36 percent in the previous quarter

The economy is up- producer prices and the labor market are driving it upReuters 7-12 2013 (US producer prices rise give positive economic signal Reuters JH httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businessinternational-businessus-businessus-producer-prices-rise-could-signal-stronger-economyarticle13188500

While federal budget cuts and higher taxes appeared to slow US economic growth sharply in the April-June period the pace of hiring has held at relatively robust levels and most economists expect growth will rebound later in the year para The data sends a reassuring signal that demand is still strong enough to push prices higher para While much of the increase in prices was fuelled by a

jump in gasoline which could weigh on consumers a gauge of underlying inflation pressures pointed to a little more vigor in the economypara So-called core producer prices which strip out volatile energy and food costs rose 02 per cent last month boosted by a 08 per

cent increase in the price of passenger cars Economists had expected core prices to rise 01 per centpara Core prices at the wholesale level rose

17 per cent in the 12 months through June matching the gain in the previous month Economists had expected a weaker 12-month rise Firmer core inflation could be good news for the economy as it may signal firming consumer demand

US labor market growing faster than expected spurring overall economic growth and confidenceHuffington Post 7-5 2013

8


(June Jobs Report US Economy Adds 195000 Jobs Unemployment Rate Unchanged Huffington Post JH httpwwwhuffingtonpostcom20130705june-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_3549873html

US employers added 195000 jobs in June and hiring was more robust in the two previous months than earlier estimated The gains raise hopes for a stronger economy in the second half of 2013para The Labor Department said Friday

that the economy also added 20000 more jobs in May and 50000 more in April than initially reported The unemployment rate stayed at 76 percent but for a good reason More people started looking for work The government counts people as unemployed only if they are searching for

jobs para Americans paychecks rose at a healthy pace and have outpaced inflation in the past year Average hourly pay increased 10 cents to $2401 Thats 22 percent higher than a year ago Over the 12 months ending in May consumer

prices rose 14 percentpara Stock index futures rose shortly after the report was released at 830 am EDT And the yield on the 10-year Treasury note jumped from 256 percent to 265 percent a sign that investors think the economy is improving

US stocks set to make record highs again- the economyrsquos upJarzemsky 7-12 2013 (Matt Stocks Pause After Rally Wall Street Journal JH httponlinewsjcomarticleSB10001424127887324879504578601251547328608html)

The Dow Jones Industrial Average tacked on nine points or 01 to 15472 in the minutes after the opening bell Thursday the Dow climbed 169 points to surpass the all-time high it had set in Maypara The Standard amp Poors 500-stock index edged down one point or 01 to 1674 The Nasdaq Composite

Index gained five points or US stocks are on pace to post their third-straight weekly advance helped in recent days by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying monetary policy would remain highly accommodative for the foreseeable future Concerns about a potential scaling back on stimulus measures later this year by way of reduced bond purchases have prompted choppy trading since mid-May

The stock marketrsquos up all round- many factorsNASDAQ 7-10 2013 (Internet Stocks Help Broad US Stock Market Gains NASDAQcom JH httpwwwnasdaqcomarticleinternet-stocks-help-broad-market-gains-oil-service-sector-and-small-cap-stocks-among-leaders-cm258571

The recent sell-off in US equities was reversed during the week-over-week period Positive economic data has helped bring the US stock market to within striking distance of all-time highs The NASDAQ US 1500 INDEX rose 28para The lsquorisk-onrsquo trade seems to be back as investors have put worries about Fed lsquotaperingrsquo aside The US looks particularly attractive compared to other markets lately as Chinarsquos growth seems to be slowingrdquo said Dave Gedeon Managing Director NASDAQ OMX Global Indexes ldquoCrude oil and energy stocks have been helped by US economic data and the turmoil in Egyptrdquopara para INDEX MOVES THIS WEEKpara The NASDAQ Internet Index (QNET) rose 31 on the strong price performance of a number of US large cap internet stocks Smaller cap stocks represented by the broad NASDAQ 1500 Index (NQUSS1500) also rose 28

Economy is improving ndash stock market provesHwang reporter for Bloomberg 625 2013 (Inyoung US Stocks Rebound From Nine-Week Low on Economic Data Bloomberg httpwwwbloombergcomnews2013-06-25u-s-stock-futures-gain-indicating-s-p-500-reboundhtml MWH)

All 10 groups in the SampP 500 rose today with financial stocks rising 19 percent for the second-largest gain JPMorgan the largest US bank by assets added 23 percent to $5208 Bank of America the second-biggest gained 3 percent to $1267 for the best performance in the Dowpara Railroads Airlinespara Investors bought shares of stocks most tied to economic growth sending the Morgan Stanley Cyclical Index up 14 percent The Dow Jones Transportation Average (TRAN) rose 19 percent as all of the 20 railroads shipping companies and airlines in the gauge advancedpara Carnival Corp rallied 5 percent to $3489 The cruise operator that had a series of mishaps at sea this year reported fiscal second-quarter profit that topped analystsrsquo estimates The company also said Micky Arison will step down as chief executive officer after 34 years as it splits the CEO and chairman rolespara Valero Energy Corp (VLO) rose 36 percent to $3498 after Goldman Sachs Group Inc boosted the worldrsquos biggest independent refiner to neutral from sell

9


Even if the US economy is shaky itrsquos doing well compared to the rest of the worldLee and Puzzanghera 7-9 2013 (Don writer for Chicago Tribune Jim writer for Chicago Tribune IMF lowers US and global economic growth forecasts Chicago Tribune httpwwwchicagotribunecombusinessla-fi-imf-world-economy-2013071005885679story MWH)

And the nation is doing much better than other advanced economies which as a group are expected to expand just 12 this year and 21 next year One factor is that some developed economies such as Germany rely more on exports The US economy is driven mostly by domestic spending para Private demand should remain solid given rising household wealth owing to the housing recovery and still supportive financial conditions the IMF said of the US economy

10


UQ ndash Econ High ndash Stocks US economy increasing- stocks proveGibson 7-9 (Kate US Stocks rise SampP 500 nears record Market Watch JH httpwwwmarketwatchcomstoryus-stocks-rise-on-earnings-optimism-2013-07-09

US stocks climbed on Tuesday pushing the SampP 500 to within 1 of its all-time closing high as Wall Street embraced an improving economy and higher interest ratespara ldquoThe market is voting itself that things are improving with interest rates going higher without taking the stock market downrdquo said JJ Kinahan chief strategist with TD Ameritradepara The SampP 500 index SPX +072 added 1186 points or 07 to 165232 with materials pacing sector gainspara ldquoFrom a technical point of view we need to test 1650 to go higherrdquo Kinahan added of the level last breached three weeks agopara The market can now make a run for the May 21 record close of 166916 he addedpara The benchmark indexes ran up to three-week highs as Alcoa Inc AA -013 started off earnings season with the aluminum manufacturer the first Dow member to report earnings for the second quarter

US economy rising stocks leading the wayKiernan 7-9 (Kaitlyn US Stocks Rise as Nasdaq Looks for Multiyear High Nasdaq JH httpwwwnasdaqcomarticleus-stocks-rise-as-nasdaq-looks-for-multiyear-high-20130709-00914) para Stocks rose toward session highs in late-afternoon trading Tuesday pushing the tech-oriented Nasdaq Composite Index toward a fresh 12-year high as earnings season got off to a decent startpara The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 94 points or 06 to 15318 in afternoon trading with Caterpillar and Cisco Systems leading gainspara The Standard amp Poors 500-stock index rose 14 points or 08 to 1654 with industrials leading nine of 10 sectors higher The Nasdaq Composite gained 23 points or 07 to 3508 on track to finish above its May 21 close of 350212 which was the highest finish since the year 2000para Were encouraged by the fact that technology is starting to lead versus the beginning of the year when it was more defensive names leading stocks higher said Joe Bell senior market analyst with Schaeffers Investment Research

11


UQ ndash Brink Obamarsquos administrationrsquos policies put economy on brink- Cato Institute- APRIL 19 2013 ( At the Brink Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge CATO Institute httpwwwcatoorgmultimediaeventsbrink-will-obama-push-us-over-edge)S

In At the Brink economist John Lott argues that the Obama administrationrsquos policies are destroying what has been a health care system that has been the envy of the world Furthermore Obama inherited a severe recession but the spectacular ldquostimulusrdquo spending with which Obama launched his presidency not only has failed to help the economymdashit has poisoned it slowing the recovery His positions on regulations and taxes have also harmed the economypara But the Obama administrationrsquos legacy isnrsquot just going to be on health care and the economy Lott says For example another long-lasting legacy will be on peoplersquos ability to defend themselves with guns The administrationrsquos appointments to the courts as well as federal actions and its unprecedented push for states to adopt gun control will reduce gun ownership and endanger lives

The US economy is on the brink ndash fears of Fed tapering and sequestrationLee and Puzzanghera 7-9 2013 (Don writer for Chicago Tribune Jim writer for Chicago Tribune IMF lowers US and global economic growth forecasts Chicago Tribune httpwwwchicagotribunecombusinessla-fi-imf-world-economy-2013071005885679story MWH)

On top of that youve got this taper panic he said of investors fears that the Fed will soon start unwinding its easy-money policies leading to higher interest rates and a flight of capital from emerging economies as investors seek higher returns in the US para In the US the IMF said the sequesters effect was likely to remain until next year longer than anticipated in the spring But as the pace of the spending cuts slows US economic growth should be able to pick up next year the IMF said

12


UQ ndash No Deficit Spending Now No deficit spending now- ALAIN SHERTER- CBS- 5-13 2013 (Feds US government is plunging CBS Moneywatch httpwwwcbsnewscom8301-505123_162-57584449feds-us-goverment-deficit-is-plunging)

(MoneyWatch) Lawmakers gearing up for what is shaping up as another bitter partisan clash over the nations borrowing limit later this year must reckon with a new fiscal reality The federal deficit is shrinking fastpara A Congressional Budget Office study released today forecasts that the annual US budget gap -- the difference between what the government collects in revenue every year and what it spends -- will fall this year to $642 billion Thats $200 billion less than the non-partisan forecasting arm of Congress was predicting only three months ago and down sharply from the deficit levels that swelled as the economy contracted following the housing crashpara The CBO attributed the budgetary progress to rising personal and corporate income taxes along with Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) -- the housing agencies seized by the government during the financial crisis -- repaying part of their bailout loans from taxpayers Tax receipts are surging largely because the payroll taxes employees pay to fund Social Security rose in January and because rates rose on the richest Americans para

No deficit spending now- the government has a surplusLange 7-11 2013 (Jason US posts unexpectedly large budget surplus for June Reuters JH httpwwwreuterscomarticle20130711us-usa-economy-budget-idUSBRE96A0TU20130711)

The US government posted an unexpectedly large budget surplus in June a further sign of the rapid improvement in public finances that has taken the heat off Congress to find savings and raise the nations borrowing limitpara Rising tax revenue public spending cuts and big payments to the Treasury from government-backed mortgage companies helped the government take in $117 billion more last month than it paid out the US Treasury said on Thursdaypara Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a surplus of $395 billion

The governmentrsquos in surplus- no deficit spendingAP 7-11 2013 (Government reports $1165B surplus in June USAToday JH httpwwwusatodaycomstorymoneybusiness20130711government-budget-surplus-june2509455)

The federal government on Thursday reported a rare surplus of $1165 billion in June the largest for a single month in five years The gain kept the US on track for its lowest annual deficit in five yearspara The surplus was due in part to $663 billion in dividend payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac The mortgage giants were taken over by the government at the height of the 2008 financial crisis and are now repaying taxpayers for the support they receivedpara

13


UQ ndash No Spending Now No new spending now- TRAVIS WALDRON- reporter for ThinkProgress at the Center for American Progress Action Fund Feb 12 2013 (Three Charts That Show America Doesnrsquot Have A Spending Problem ThinkProgress httpthinkprogressorgeconomy201302121580111three-charts-that-show-america-doesnt-have-a-spending-problem) S

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosirsquos (D-CA) claim this weekend that the government doesnrsquot have a spending problem has been met with typical outrage from Republican politicians (and several members of the Washington media) who have spent the greater part of the last three years arguing that reining in Americarsquos supposed out-of-control government spending would put the country on a more stable economic footing There is however no basis to those claims as actual evidence points in the opposite directionpara As this chart from Slatersquos Matt Yglesias shows overall government spending has plateaued under President Obama after rising sharply under George W Bush and during Obamarsquos first year in office when the economic recovery act went into effectpara In fact the reduction in growth of spending under Obama is unprecedented in the last half-century and government spending under Obama is growing at the slowest rate since Dwight Eisenhower was president

14


UQ ndash Deficit Decreasing Now The deficit is decreasing nowPapadimitriou president of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and executive vice president of Bard 13 (Dimitri What the economy needs is even more deficit spending Deseret News httpwwwdeseretnewscomarticle765626414What-the-economy-needs-is-even-more-deficit-spendinghtmlpg=all MWH)

The deficit has arguably gained the distinction of being the single most widely misunderstood public policy issue in America Just 6 percent (6) of respondents in a recent poll correctly stated that it had been shrinking which has in fact been the case for several years while 10 times more 62 percent wrongly believed that its been getting bigger

15


16


Link Debate

17


Link ndash Cuba ndash BizCon Investment in Cuba tanks business confidence ndash itrsquos viewed as dangerousRohrlich 12 (Justin Award-winning Head Writer of World in Review Risky Business Investing in Cuba Is More Than Just a Financial Gamble httpwwwminyanvillecombusiness-newseditors-pickarticlescuba-emerging-markets-frontier-markets-market6202012id41867refresh=1 MWH)

Investment risk can mean a number of different things This past fall British businessman Amado Fakhre took a particularly severe type of loss His freedompara October 2011 Fakhre the Lebanese-born Havana-based CEO of Coral Capital -- which claimed to have invested $75 million in Cuba with more than $1 billion worth of projects in the pipeline -- is woken at dawn and arrested by Cuban authorities Coral Capitalrsquos offices are shuttered and declared a crime scene Fakhre has been held without charges ever since para April 2012 Coral Capitalrsquos COO Stephen Purvis is picked up by Cuban government agents as he prepares to walk his children to school He too has been held without charges and no mention has been made of either case in Cubarsquos state-run mediapara Before their disappearances Fakhre and Purvis seemed to have no shortage of confidence in Coralrsquos venturespara ldquoWersquore not virgins at thisrdquo Purvis told a reporter regarding the Bellomonte Golf Club a 650-acre property under development at the time of his arrestpara

Indeed Purvis and Fakhre were not beginners -- Coral Capital was formed in 1999 to invest in Cuba and successfully restored Havanarsquos Hotel Saratoga where rates climb as high as $900 per night They also opened the islandrsquos first Land Rover dealership which was admittedly a work in progress (they sold a total of one car to themselveshellipbut these things take time)para Coral Capital was not the only foreign company paid back by the Cuban government with a complimentary stay at Villa Marista the state security torture facility that apparently also doubles as a guesthousepara Vahe Cy Tokmakjian CEO of Ontario Canadarsquos Tokmakjian Group which sold buses trucks and mining equipment to Cuba and served as Cubarsquos exclusive distributor for Hyundai was an experienced Cuba handpara I came to Cuba 21 years ago when the times of economic trouble began and despite my bankers advice I considered I could trust Cubans so thatrsquos how I came here why Irsquom here now and why I will continue to be here he told Cuba Plus a publication produced by Vancouverrsquos Taina Communications in partnership with the Cuban governmentpara

To be sure Tokmakjian whose company did an estimated $80 million worth of business with the island annually continues to live in Cuba -- held without charges since September 2011 when he was taken into custody by state security and his company closed (A second Canadian Tri-Star Caribbean CEO Sarkis Yacoubian has been held by the Cuban government without charges for almost a year)para What Happenedpara

As Fakhre Purvis et al (over the past two years Cuba has sent 52 foreigners as well as hundreds of Cuban ministers and officials to jail and has expelled more than 150 foreign business owners and operators) have now discovered part of the reform process appears to include President Raul Castro making good on a 2008 vow to root out the rampant corruption that has been a part of daily life for decadespara A noble goal hampered by the fact that no clear definition exists of what exactly constitutes ldquocorruptionrdquopara A centrally-controlled command economy such as Cubarsquos with a near-total lack of transparency ensures that ldquoevery act is fraught for anybody trying to exist from businesspeople to the average Joerdquo says a diplomatic official who agreed to speak to me anonymouslypara ldquoThe Cubans have very publicly made examples of what they perceive to be corruption issuesrdquo the source explainspara One of those in an interesting reversal of the norm is what might be referred to as a ldquomaximum wage lawrdquo which reportedly hovers around $20 per month According to the Economist Raul Castro ldquoconsiders letting foreign firms pay market wages a step too farrdquo forcing companies ldquoto break the law -- and run afoul of his newfound efforts to enforce itrdquopara ldquoWe are somewhat in the dark hererdquo said a European businessman based in Havana ldquoIf I pay my manager an extra $100 a month as I feel I should is that a crime against national securityrdquo para The answer is in a Communist country yes Money is power and the inevitable income disparities that result from capitalistic concepts like bonuses collapse the order of a ldquoclassless societyrdquo para Herersquos former UK Ambassador to North Korea John Everardpara The regimersquos distaste for markets is easy to understand Because of the markets people who had been brought up to depend on the state to provide everything had developed some economic independence Customers had learned the importance of price and had learned to choose their purchases while market traders had emerged who had learned the subversive skills of bargaining

18


procurement and logistics People had also learned the usefulness of markets as sources of news and gossip outside official control The results of decades of ideological work were at riskpara Sometimes the bribes are blatant like the ldquofree trips abroad computers flat-screen TVs or large deposits of cash in foreign bank accounts for senior officialsrdquo reported by a South American importer doing business in Cuba before he was accused of corruption and expelled in 2009 Other times they may be inadvertent (a few dollars for gas) or perfectly acceptable in market societies (paying commissions)para The forms of persuasion -- lets call it that -- are nearly infinite said the importerpara And illegal As one Facebook commenter who appears to be acquainted with Stephen Purvis writes ldquoSteve has meant well by lsquosubsidisingrsquo the marginal salaries of Cuban management staff -- but we all know that ANY payments of foreign currency to Cubans is strictly prohibited and is regarded as paying bribesrdquo

19


Link ndash EE ndash Generic The plan causes an increase in spending Daga 5-15 2013 (Sergio Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic US Economic Engagement Toward Cuba Mexico or Venezuela NCPA JH httpwwwncpaorgpubeconomics-of-the-2013-2014-debate-topic-us-economic-engagement-toward-cuba-mexico-or-venezuela

The vast sums of money para dispensed by multilateral para foreign aid agencies such as the para International Monetary Fund and para the World Bank give the officials para of these agencies enormous para influence on the governments of para aid-recipient nations regardless para of the success or failure of the para programs they suggest or impose para as preconditions for receiving para moneypara Direct government-to government grants of money para

shipments of free food and para loans are also made available on para terms more lenient than those para available in financial markets para Government-to-government para loans are periodically ldquoforgivenrdquo para allowed to default or ldquorolled para overrdquo by being repaid from para the proceeds of new and larger para loans Foreign aid is often a para

disguised subsidy to domestic para manufacturing firms or farms para The Export-Import Bank of the para United States for example loans para money to foreign governments para to purchase US goods Other para developed countries have similar para agencies

Economic engagement involves spending moneyDaily Impact 13 (The Daily Impact US Senator Calls for Deeper Economic Engagement in Africa the Impact JH httpblogpsiimpactcom201303the-daily-impact-us-senator-calls-for-deeper-economic-engagement-in-africa

-Early reauthorization of the African Growth and Opportunity Act a 2000 law to offer trade preferences to African countries to help open their economies and build free markets The law which expires in 2015 has supported the growth of an African middle class reduced dependence on development assistance and opened African markets to American companies according to the reportpara -Increasing the presence of US foreign commercial service officers who help develop markets for US exporters in sub-Saharan Africa Six officers are stationed there now There are no officers in five of the six African countries listed among the 10 fastest-growing economies in the past decadepara -Improved coordination between US government agencies as part of a more comprehensive strategy for investment in sub-Saharan Africapara ldquoTherersquos literally 10 different federal agencies doing trade policy and international developmentrdquo Coons said ldquoMaking sure they work better together doesnrsquot require more money It just requires spending the money hellip wellrdquo

20


Link ndash EE ndash Pork Barrel Aid is pork barrel spending Erik Lundsgarade- Senior Researcher at the German Development Institute (DIE) December 2012 (The Domestic Politics of Foreign Aid Volume 1 of Routledge Explorations in Development StudieshttpbooksgooglecombooksaboutThe_Domestic_Politics_of_Foreign_Aidhtmlid=Y8rKpnz0HkEC) S

The politics of the pork barrel spending is one extension of this logic The scale of pork barrel spending relating to projects where funding is earmarked for a specific purpose and a targeted beneficiary is often overstated (Lee 2003) Nevertheless congressional earmarking can serve as an important means of building supporting coalitions for potentially unpopular legislation (Evans 1994 Lee 2000 2003) Aid spending has been especially venerable to earmarking As an example a review of aid programs prepared by the Congressional Research Service in 1988 noted that earmarks in that year affected 81 percent of USAIDrsquos operating budget reflecting a rising trend in the use of earmarks in the course of the 1980s (Nowels 1989b)

21


Link ndash Energy ndash Deficit $ Energy development and research- spends 172 billion Bryan Walsh- New York Times- Science and Space November 11 2011 (Does the US Spend Too Much on Green Energy mdash or Not Enough New York Times httpwwwtimecomtimehealtharticle08599209948000html)

The Post piece by Steven Mufson noted that from 1961 to 2008 the federal government spent $172 billion on basic research and development of advanced energy mdash and suggested that we hadnt gotten anywhere near our moneys worth Experimental nuclear plants synthetic fuels hydrogen-powered cars mdash on the long list of government bets on new energy technology Mufson found few clean winners As former Obama economic adviser and Clinton-era Treasury Secretary Larry Summers put it in an e-mail to other White House staff about possible loans for Solyndra the federal government seems to be a crappy VCpara All this plus the lingering fallout from Solyndra mdash a poster child for the Obama Administrations green-investment plans before its spectacular failure in September mdash would seem to put the final nails in the coffin for government green investmentpara Or does it First its important to note that subsidies for clean energy still lag far behind the public money that goes toward oil coal and natural gas projects According to the International Energy Agency fossil fuels received $409 billion in subsidies globally in 2010 compared with $66 billion for renewable power Of course fossil fuels supply far more energy than renewable sources mdash about 80 of global energy consumption mdash and thus give a better return on investment on a megawatt-by-megawatt basis But coal and oil have been around for over a century making them the very definition of mature industries mdash and therefore one would think less in need of sustained government assistance

22


Link ndash FA ndash Deficit $ US foreign aid is deficit spending Gretchen Hamel- The New York Times 2012 (Canrsquot Afford Foreign Aid or Canrsquot Afford to Cut It The New York Times 12-3 httpwwwnytimescomroomfordebate20120815cant-afford-foreign-aid-or-cant-afford-to-cut-it)

With the American economy and the federal budget in tatters the $50 billion that the US spends on foreign aid could be a tempting target for deficit hawks Should the US sustain its contributions when it canrsquot balance its own budget Since 2009 Americans have watched our national debt grow by 50 percent Along with this increase the concern for government spending is intensifying Not since the 1990s have Americans been so focused on the debt and rightfully so According to Pew data released this summer our deficit is ldquoone of the fastest growing priorities for Americansrdquo eclipsed only by the economy and jobspara Just as a doctor would treat an illness we must look for the cause of the ailment In the case of the deficit thatrsquos government overspending So the question clearly is ldquoWhere do we cutrdquo But thats where the debate always veers off track Foreign aid often comes up because it is a big and slow-moving target Of course itrsquos only a drop of the total budget mdash 1 percent mdash but you have to start somewherepara Some foreign aid spending is wasteful and even counterproductive Why do we give Pakistan $1 billion a yearpara Take our aid to Pakistan for example Is there a better place to start than cutting spending to a nation that quite likely aided and abetted the mastermind behind 911 Osama bin Laden A country that has put a man behind bars for helping the CIA track down bin Laden Aid to Pakistan is only a little over $1 billion a year mdash nothing compared to the $50 billion wasted yearly in Medicare But this is a cut that would be based on principlepara It would be foolish to cut all foreign aid We just have to be smarter about how we spend the money There are plenty of worthy causes but the waste and counterproductive spending on foreign aid show that even the small line items in the federal budget can be trimmed if we make cuts based on principles and prioritiespara On foreign aid and other areas of the budget itrsquos time for the president and Congress prioritize reform and reduce government spending Otherwise we will face the fiscal and economic consequences

23


Link ndash Trade ndash Deficit $ Trade is deficit spending Associated Press- USA Today- May 2 2013 (US trade deficit falls to $388 billion USA Today httpwwwusatodaycomstorymoneybusiness20130502trade-deficit-march2128791) S

WASHINGTON (AP) mdash The US trade deficit narrowed in March for a second month as the daily flow of imported crude oil dropped to the lowest level in 17 yearspara The trade deficit with China hit a three-year lowpara Overall the deficit shrank to $388 billion an 11 drop from Februarys $436 billion the Commerce Department reported Thursdaypara Exports fell 09 to $1843 billion as sales of machinery autos and farm products declined Imports fell 28 to $2231 billion led by a 44 drop in foreign petroleum Crude oil imports averaged just 7 million barrels per day the lowest since March 1996para A smaller trade gap can boost economic growth as US companies earn more from overseas sales while consumers and businesses spend less on foreign productspara For the first three months this year the trade deficit is running at an annual rate of $5077 billion 59 below last years deficit of $5395 billion Economists are looking for the deficit to narrow slightly this year in part because they expect continued gains in US exportspara The politically sensitive deficit with China shrank 236 in March to $179 billion still far above the imbalance with any other countrypara The deficit with the European Union grew 13 in March to $99 billion even though US exports to the region rose 144 But for the year US exports to Europe are down 8 compared with the same period in 2012 reflecting the impact of a recession in the 17 European Union countries that use the euro

24


25


Internal Link Debate

26


IL ndash Deficit Spending Increased deficit spending kills the economyMitchell Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University 2013 (Matthew Deficit Spending Displaces Private Economic Growth US News httpwwwusnewscomdebate-clubshould-balancing-the-federal-budget-be-a-top-policy-prioritydeficit-spending-displaces-private-economic-growth MWH)

The case for budget balance begins with economic growth A number of studies have now found that nations with high debtmdashtypically defined as debt in excess of 90 percent of GDPmdashtend to grow more slowly para Some still argue that the US is special We operate our own currency and it happens to be the currency in which international business is conducted This advantage may allow us to blow through the 90 percent mark without slowing growth But the Congressional Budget Office is now projecting thatmdashabsent policy changemdashUS debt will reach 100 percent of GDP in about a decade and climb to 200 percent just 13 years after that The US might be special but it isnt that special There is some level of debt that will affect us And there is no law that says international commerce will always be conducted in the US dollar (just ask the British)para Even if economic growth is not your top priority excessive debt should still concern you It makes it harder for government to do other things that you might value More debt means higher debt payments And every dollar the government sends to a creditor is a dollar it might have spent on Social Security Medicare or infrastructure Assuming interest rates remain moderate the CBO projects that in just 12 years we will spend more on interest payments than on Medicare In 16 years we will spend more on interest payments than on Social Security

Deficit spending kills the economy ndash it trades off with private profitEdwards director of tax policy studies at Cato Institute 2011 (Chris senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee a manager with PricewaterhouseCoopers and an economist with the Tax Foundation Federal Spending Doesnrsquot Work Cato Institute httpwwwcatoorgpublicationscommentaryfederal-spending-doesnt-work MWH)

Letrsquos take a look at how government spending damages the economy over the long run Spending is financed by the extraction of resources from current and future taxpayers The resources consumed by the government cannot be used to produce goods in the private marketplace For example the engineers needed to build a $10 billion government high-speed rail line are taken away from building other products in the economy The $10 billion rail line creates government-connected jobs but it also kills at least $10 billion worth of private jobspara Indeed the private sector would actually lose more than $10 billion in this example That is because government spending and taxing creates ldquodeadweight lossesrdquo which result from distortions to working investment and other activities The CBO says that deadweight loss estimates ldquorange from 20 cents to 60 cents over and above the revenue raisedrdquo Harvard Universityrsquos Martin Feldstein thinks that deadweight losses ldquomay exceed one dollar per dollar of revenue raised making the cost of incremental governmental spending more than two dollars for each dollar of government spendingrdquo Thus a $10 billion high-speed rail line would cost the private economy $20 billion or morepara The government uses a ldquoleaky bucketrdquo when it tries to help the economy Former chairman of the Council of Economics Advisors Michael Boskin explains ldquoThe cost to the economy of each additional tax dollar is about $140 to $150 Now that tax dollar hellip is put into a bucket Some of it leaks out in overhead waste and so on In a well-managed program the government may spend 80 or 90 cents of that dollar on achieving its goals Inefficient programs would be much lower $030 or $040 on the dollarrdquo Texas AampM economist Edgar Browning comes to similar conclusions about the magnitude of the governmentrsquos leaky bucket ldquoIt costs taxpayers $3 to provide a benefit worth $1 to recipientsrdquopara The larger the government grows the leakier the bucket becomes On the revenue side tax distortions rise rapidly as tax rates rise On the spending side funding is allocated to activities with ever lower returns as the government expands Figure 2 illustrates the consequences of the leaky bucket On the left-hand side tax rates are low and the government initially delivers useful public goods such as crime reduction Those activities create high returns so per-capita incomes initially rise as the government grows As the government expands further it engages in less

27


productive activities The marginal return from government spending falls and then turns negative On the right-hand side of the figure average incomes fall as the government expands Government in the United States mdash at more than 40 percent of GDP mdash is almost certainly on the right-hand side of this figurepara In his 2008 book Stealing from Ourselves Professor Browning concludes that todayrsquos welfare state reduces GDP mdash or average US incomes mdash by about 25 percent That would place us quite far to the right in Figure 2 and it suggests that federal spending cuts would substantially increase US incomes over time

Spending causes economic decline Richard Lachmann- sociology department at the State University of New York at Alabany 2011 (The roots of American Decline American Sociological Association httpcontextsorgarticleswinter-2011the-roots-of-american-decline)S

The dominant view shared by almost all those on the right and many ldquocentristsrdquo is that fiscal crisis is due to rising spending on social programs (An alternative version of this theory points to increases in military spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) From this perspective excessive spending produces fiscal crisis which in turn causes decline The solution then is to cut back social benefits (or military commitments) in order to head off a run on the US dollar and drastic increases in interest rates that would fatally weaken the US economypara This approach doesnrsquot square with basic facts about American state spending The federal budget in the US has held steady as a share of GDP since 1968 (see below) That lack of growth is possible in part because social benefits in the US are among the skimpiest of any industrialized country according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) a group of the thirty-three richest countries The OECD also reports that poverty rates are higher in the US than most other rich countries The last expansion of Federal social programs occurred with the Great Society of the 1960s And military spending again as a percentage of GDP has actually declined drastically since the Cold War (see below)

Deficit spending causes economic downturnThomas E Woods Jr MPhil and PhD in history from Columbia University- bachelors from Harvard 12 (Meltdown A Free-Market Look at para Why the Stock Market Collapsed the para Economy Tanked and Government para Bailouts Will Make Things Worse by httpbook-nerdinfowp-contentuploadspdfsMeltdown20A20Free-Market20Look20at20Why20the20Stock20Market20Collapsed20the20Economy20Tanked20and20Government20Bailouts20Will20Make20Things20Worse20by20Thomas20E20Woods20Jr20-20Enlightenment20Dawnspdfkm)

Of course downturns are inevitably painful resulting as they do from para Unsustainable rates of project development and artificially high standards para of living created in large part by risky borrowing and lending But para government interference in the form of stimulus spending Fed policy to para lower interest rates even further etc invariably cause the downturn to last para longer and with a smaller rebound than would be experienced otherwise para Both the Bush and Obama administrations are going about things exactly para wrong trying to keep a financially disastrous bubble artificially afloat para through deficit spending This means that real resources will not be para available to generate a reboundIt is hard to compress the argument of this book any further because it is already so concise the best thing to do is just the read the book The para upshot of all this and the most important take-away message is that our para current crisis is not the result of the failure of free markets rather it para resulted from the fact that our markets are not truly free They are distorted para by the harmful intervention of government which through its insurance para policies and special tax and regulation breaks for GSEs like Fannie Mae para and Freddie Mac only increase moral haxard encourage risky lending and para tamper with the supply of money (which should be based preferably on a para gold standard or even more ideally whatever medium of exchange people para feel is appropriate to their needs) The argument at least for me was more para or less completely persuasive certainly this explanation makes the most para sense of all the analyses I have read of the crisis so far

28


Spending cuts only deepens economic downturnKrugman 10-Nobel prize winning professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University (Paul ldquoThe Pain Caucusrdquo The New York Times httpwwwnytimescom20100531opinion31krugmanhtml)

The extent to which inflicting economic pain has become the accepted thing was driven home to me by the latest report on the economic outlook from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development an influential Paris-based think tank supported by the governments of the worldrsquos advanced economies The OECD is a deeply cautious organization what it says at any given time virtually defines that momentrsquos conventional wisdom And what the OECD is saying right now is that policy makers should stop promoting economic recovery and instead begin raising interest rates and slashing spendingpara Whatrsquos particularly remarkable about this recommendation is that it seems disconnected not only from the real needs of the world economy but from the organizationrsquos own economic projectionspara Thus the OECD declares that interest rates in the United States and other nations should rise sharply over the next year and a half so as to head off inflation Yet inflation is low and declining and the OECDrsquos own forecasts show no hint of an inflationary threat So why raise ratespara The answer as best I can make it out is that the organization believes that we must worry about the chance that markets might start expecting inflation even though they shouldnrsquot and currently donrsquot We must guard against ldquothe possibility that longer-term inflation expectations could become unanchored in the OECD economies contrary to what is assumed in the central projectionrdquopara A similar argument is used to justify fiscal austerity Both textbook economics and experience say that slashing spending when yoursquore still suffering from high unemployment is a really bad idea mdash not only does it deepen the slump but it does little to improve the budget outlook because much of what governments save by spending less they lose as a weaker economy depresses tax receipts And the OECD predicts that high unemployment will persist for years Nonetheless the organization demands both that governments cancel any further plans for economic stimulus and that they begin ldquofiscal consolidationrdquo next yearpara Why do this Again to give markets something they shouldnrsquot want and currently donrsquot Right now investors donrsquot seem at all worried about the solvency of the US government the interest rates on federal bonds are near historic lows And even if markets were worried about US fiscal prospects spending cuts in the face of a depressed economy would do little to improve those prospects But cut we must says the OECD because inadequate consolidation efforts ldquowould risk adverse reactions in financial marketsrdquopara The best summary Irsquove seen of all this comes from Martin Wolf of The Financial Times who describes the new conventional wisdom as being that ldquogiving the markets what we think they may want in future mdash even though they show little sign of insisting on it now mdash should be the ruling idea in policyrdquopara Put that way it sounds crazy And it is Yet itrsquos a view thatrsquos spreading And itrsquos already having ugly consequences Last week conservative members of the House invoking the new deficit fears scaled back a bill extending aid to the long-term unemployed mdash and the Senate left town without acting on even the inadequate measures that remained As a result many American families are about to lose unemployment benefits health insurance or both mdash and as these families are forced to slash spending they will endanger the jobs of many morepara And thatrsquos just the beginning More and more conventional wisdom says that the responsible thing is to make the unemployed suffer And while the benefits from inflicting pain are an illusion the pain itself will be all too real

29


IL ndash Pork Barrel Pork barrel spending bad- hurts economyJames Smith- Senior management Financial Services firms and business consultant 2007 (Pork barrel spending in Washington wastes tax dollars Helium httpwwwheliumcomitems419378-pork-barrel-spending-in-washington-wastes-tax-dollars) S

Pork barrel spending has been rampant in recent years as the Congress has created a process with a total lack of transparency to circumvent spending due process review Much of this Pork spending would not stand up under any type of coherent review As the Republican Congress has failed to restrain spending and President Bush has refused to veto any spending bill Pork barrel spending has increased every year from 1991 through 2006para So what defines Pork Barrel spendingpara The non profit non-partisan group Citizens against Government Waste has a definition that uses common sense as followspara Requested by one Chamber of Congresspara Not specifically authorizedpara Not competitively awardedpara Not requested by the Presidentpara Greatly exceeds Presidents budget request or prior year fundingpara Not subject to Congressional hearingspara Serves only a local or special interestpara Using this definition Citizens against Government Waste identified 2658 projects in 2007 at a cost to the taxpayer of 132 billion in the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations actions Since 1991 Pork identified under the above definition has totaled 252 Billion dollars with Alaska and Hawaii being the biggest per capita beneficiariespara This Pork Barrel spending in Washington comes at a time when the Federal budget is in deep deficit The attitude in Washington DC is that there is a virtually unlimited supply of tax-payer dollars to spend Of course when the budget deficit gets large enough and the dollars begin to dwindle then the only solution is to raise taxespara While the Congressional career politicians were spending money on various Pork projects to bring home the bacon for their home districts and states laws passed for Education ( No child Left behind ) Border Security and others were not being properly funded and the country was in deficit spending The obvious conclusion is that political reelection is more important to our career politicians than properly funding Education Border Security or the massive budget deficit regardless of what their statements are during election campaignspara Finally Pork Barrel spending in Washington wastes taxpayer dollars that could be used for many other progressive projects or to reduce the budget deficit During the last several years the Congressional political hogs have had a feast at the Pork Barrel The time has come for voters to demand that politicians of both parties go on a Pork-Free Diet for the financial health of the nation overall

USAID- is pork barrel spending- food aid program provesCharles Kenny- a fellow at the Center for Global Development and the New America Foundation March-18- 2013 (Its time to reform USAID Blomberg Buisiness- Global Economics httpwwwbusinessweekcomarticles2013-03-18its-time-to-reform-usaid)

Although as much as $17 billion might be slashed from the US foreign assistance budget because of sequester cuts little outcry has emerged Foreign aid has never been popular In opinion polls itrsquos often the first expenditure suggested for the chopping block Surveys suggest Americans feel a moral responsibility to help the worldrsquos worst off but they believe the aid bureaucracy is bloated and doesnrsquot workpara That however is a misperception In practice the foreign aid system and in particular the US Agency for International Development (USAID) work very well in accomplishing what Washington politicians want them to do But that includes a range of purposes that have little to do with helping the worldrsquos poorpara When it comes to buying friends at the United Nations or buying crops in the Midwest or creating jobs around the Capital Beltway the US foreign aid system is a paragon of effectiveness Take the goal of buying friends Eric Werker a Harvard Business School associate professor and Ilyana Kuziemko now a Columbia Business School associate professor and Harvard PhD estimated in a 2006 Harvard paper that countries rotating onto the UN Security Council were likely to see their US aid increase by 59 percent The aid then fell as the countries finished their terms In a 1999 study Illinois State Universityrsquos TY Wang found that US aid successfully affects UN voting patterns on issues vital to

30


Americarsquos national interestspara The foreign aid budget is also a prime vehicle for pork barrel spending The US food aid program for instance purchases about $1 billion worth of American crops a year It spends roughly an additional $1 billion transporting the crops overseas in most cases using US-flagged ships A study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research looked at contracts issued by USAID for the relief effort in Haiti It found that while only 002 percent of these contracts went to Haitian firms more than 75 percent were handed to firms in Washington DC Maryland and Virginia Washington-based contractor Chemonics with more than 3000 employees received worldwide USAID program funds of nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in 2011para Itrsquos perhaps unsurprising that aid designed to maximize friends crop purchases and US contractors isnrsquot the most effective at supporting development Take food aid Economics professors Nathan Nunn of Harvard and Nancy Qian of Yale demonstrated in a 2010 paper that what determines the size of US food aid shipments isnrsquot recipient need but the size of the US crop And about half the funding is used on shipping That same money could buy supplies in local markets and help farmers in developing countries Many US contractors bring years of technical experience and a real commitment to development Yet the considerable majority of US aid doesnrsquot appear anywhere on recipient country budget plans suggesting the money is buying what American suppliers want to sellmdashnot what recipients need to getpara So whorsquos to blame for the poor record of US foreign aid as a tool of development Itrsquos not the fault of the long-suffering staff of US aid agencies who can deliver very effective programs if given the chance A global initiative backed by the US and other donors supported delivery of 225 million measles vaccine doses in 2011 alonemdashpart of a campaign that has reduced measles deaths worldwide from 26 million in 1980 to 139000 in 2010 The blame instead lies largely with members of Congress who complain that aid is wasted because it doesnrsquot lead to development and then turn around and ensure hardly any assistance is designed or delivered with development as the primary goalpara Therersquos pressure for change USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah is trying to fix at least two of the problems that prevent aid from working better to promote development ldquoThis agency is no longer satisfied with writing big checks to big contractors and calling it developmentrdquo said Shah in 2011 He has followed through with reforms designed to ensure more companies in recipient countries can win some USAID contracts The Obama administration is also considering overhauling the food aid program so it delivers cash to hungry people or local food buyers rather than shipping grain halfway around the worldpara USAIDrsquos current contractors have hired lobbyists from the Podesta Group to combat procurement reform and an alliance of domestic agricultural groups shipping interests and US nongovernmental organizations that implement the food aid program are also resisting change The food aid lobby isnrsquot shy about defending the idea that combating malnutrition overseas should benefit American businesses at home ldquoGrowing manufacturing bagging shipping and transporting nutritious US food creates jobs and economic activity here at home provides support for our US Merchant Marine essential to our national defense sealift capability and sustains a robust domestic constituency for these programs not easily replicated in alternative foreign aid programsrdquo they notepara If all we want is friends jobs and crops we already have the aid program we need But for those who want our support to foster development and help the worldrsquos poor perhaps itrsquos time to overhaul the way we provide foreign aid Otherwise wersquoll continue to funnel aid dollars down Beltway and Cornbelt ratholes

31


IL ndash AT Keynesian Good Stimulus doesnrsquot improve the economy ndash their ev doesnrsquot assume the massive debt wersquove already incurredMitchell Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University 13 (Matthew Deficit Spending Displaces Private Economic Growth US News httpwwwusnewscomdebate-clubshould-balancing-the-federal-budget-be-a-top-policy-prioritydeficit-spending-displaces-private-economic-growth MWH)

First the evidence that deficit spending yields lasting growth is nowhere near as clear as stimulus proponents make it out to be In fact there is good reason to believe that deficit-financed spending displaces private economic activity even in the short run para Second the data suggest that there are diminishing marginal returns to stimulus spending It is less effective the more you do it And weve already done it a lot The data also suggest that stimulus is less effective in highly indebted nations So as we pile on debt today we make future stimulus efforts that much less effective

Keynesian spending fails ndash empirics proveMitchell Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University 2013 (Matthew Deficit Spending Displaces Private Economic Growth US News httpwwwusnewscomdebate-clubshould-balancing-the-federal-budget-be-a-top-policy-prioritydeficit-spending-displaces-private-economic-growth MWH)

There is renewed talk in Washington about further spending measures to try and stimulate the weak economy That idea is remarkably naiumlve and misguided It is now more than two years after passage of the $821 billion stimulus package in 2009 and it is obvious that that effort was a hugely expensive Keynesian policy failure para The Obama administrationrsquos attempt to pump up ldquoaggregate demandrdquo in the economy simply hasnrsquot worked In Keynesian theory the total amount of deficit spending is the amount of ldquostimulusrdquo delivered to the economy Well wersquove had deficit spending of $459 billion in 2008 $14 trillion in 2009 $13 trillion in 2010 and $14 trillion in 2011 para Yet despite that enormous deficit-spending stimulus US unemployment remains stuck at more than 9 percent and the recovery is very sluggish compared to prior recoveries Indeed the current recovery appears to be slower than any since World War II according to a recent Joint Economic Committee study

They donrsquot boost the economy ndash the multiplier is too small and the government mismanages ndash empirics proveEdwards director of tax policy studies at Cato Institute 2011 (Chris senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee a manager with PricewaterhouseCoopers and an economist with the Tax Foundation Federal Spending Doesnrsquot Work Cato Institute httpwwwcatoorgpublicationscommentaryfederal-spending-doesnt-work MWH)

Obama administration economists had claimed that the Keynesian ldquomultipliersrdquo from government spending are large meaning that spending would give a big boost to GDP But other economists have found that Keynesian multipliers are actually quite small meaning that added government spending mainly just displaces private-sector activities Stanford University economist John Taylor took a detailed look at GDP data over recent years and he found little evidence of any benefits from the 2009 stimulus bill Any ldquosugar highrdquo to the economy from recent increases in government spending was at best very small and short-lived para The reality is that Washington is very bad at trying to micromanage short-term economic performance Its failed stimulus actions have just put the nation further into debt which will harm our long-term prosperity Harvard Universityrsquos Robert Barro calculated that any short-term benefit that the 2009 stimulus bill may have provided is greatly outweighed by the future damage caused by higher taxes and debt

32


Spending cuts provide more stimulus than spending Alex Adrianson- editor for The Insider 2010 (Spending Cuts Are Good for the Economy The Heritage Network httpblogheritageorg20100916spending-cuts-are-good-for-the-economy)S

Reducing budget deficits by cutting government spending has a stronger record of economic stimulus than either reducing the deficit with tax increases or increasing government spending Thatrsquos what Harvard economists Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna have found in their recent research They examined 107 instances of large reductions (at least 15 percent in one year) in budget deficits as well as 91 instances of large increases (over 15 percent in one year) in budget deficits over the past 40 yearspara They found that when an economy expands following deficit reduction spending cuts were the largest part of the adjustment At the same time when recessions followed deficit reduction tax increases were the predominant policy The authors also found that when budget deficits increased tax cuts had a more expansionary impact on the economy than spending increasespara Writing in the Wall Street Journal Alesina points to the reason for these findings Spending cuts ldquosignal that tax increases will not occur in the future or that if they do they will be smaller A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes expectations of future tax liabilities This in turn shifts peoplersquos behavior Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time rdquo

Keynesianism theory fails- para

Tino Sanandaji- The American- Economic Policy- December 1 2011 (Why Keynesianism Works Better in Theory Than in Practice The American httpwwwamericancomarchive2011novemberour-two-keynes-problem) S

The second definition of ldquoKeynesianismrdquo is a policy recipe for coping with recessions a cure for the disease of recessions The promise is that the public sector can bring the economy out of recessions through deficit spendingpara It might seem natural that Keynesian theory implies Keynesian policy indeed the two were intimately linked during the first decades of Keynesianism However decades of historic experience alongside advances in macroeconomics have shown that Keynesian fiscal policy is not as effective as predicted by Keynesian theory The diagnosis may be correct but the medicine most commonly associated with it has been shown to be surprisingly impotentpara The reason for this disconnect is that the economy turned out to be more complex than assumed by simpler Keynesian models One of the three motivations for awarding Milton Friedman the Nobel Prize was ldquofor his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy Note that Friedman challenged the effectiveness of Keynesian fiscal policy not Keynesrsquos insight about the importance of aggregate demand for recessions Thus Milton Friedman wrote in one sense we are all Keynesians now in another no one is a Keynesian any longerhellipWe all use the Keynesian language and apparatus none of us any longer accepts the initial Keynesian conclusionspara Not the first disappointment of Keynesian fiscal policypara Three-quarters of the public conclude that the stimulus failedpara By the late 1970s the failure of Keynesianism in demand management led economists to become increasingly skeptical of active fiscal stabilization policy Macroeconomic theory advanced beyond the old simple Keynesian models by attempting to take into account the decision-making of individuals In 2011 some of this work was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economicspara Economists did not turn against Keynesian policy purely for theoretical or even ideological reasons but rather because of the disappointing experience from pervasive deficit spending over a long period in a large number of countries An influential 2003 study examined Keynesian policies in 91 countries in the postwar period and found that ldquogovernments that use fiscal policy aggressively induce significant macroeconomic instabilityrdquo12para Economists still recognized some use for Keynesian policies but no longer viewed them as unambiguously beneficial When asked if ldquofiscal policy can be an effective stabilizerrdquo the majority of US graduate students in economics ldquoagreed with some reservationrdquo3para

33


Keynesianism economics still not working Loren Heal- Freedom Works- on April 30 2013 (Keynesian Economics Still Failing After All These Years Freedom Works httpwwwfreedomworksorgbloglhealkeynesian-economics-still-failing-after-all-these )S

Keynesianism is still not workingpara The central idea of the dominant economic philosophy in Washington DC is that when the private economy fails to produce enough demand the government can and should step in to take up the economic slack It should have been long since discredited But like other bad ideas people keep bringing it backpara No sane person would say we have not tried government spending to stimulate the economy Weve tried it over and over and it does not workpara But still some will beat a straw man until he cries for submission Henry Blodgett writing at Yahoonoted that an important error had been uncovered in an influential economics findingpara Once the error was corrected the 90 debt-to-GDP threshold instantly disappeared Higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic growth but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced And there was no dangerous point-of-no-return that countries had to avoid exceeding at all costspara The discovery of this simple math error eliminated one of the key facts upon which the austerity movement was basedpara It also in my opinion settled the stimulus vs austerity argument once and for allpara The argument is over Paul Krugman has won The only question now is whether the folks who have been arguing that we have no choice but to cut government spending while the economy is still weak will be big enough to admit thatpara The straw man is twofold First debt is not just bad because it slows down the economy which it does a little Debt is bad because it eventually piles up and the interest crushes the economic life out of a nationpara Secondly the 90 figure is important to those who identified the problem as the deficit (and taxes being too low) rather than as too much government that spends too much Deficit and debt are symptoms of tring to spend our way out of a slow economy As governments try to cushion the people from the effects of bad decisions or to spend their way to prosperity they tend to develop high levels of debt

Keynesian theories debunked net loss on growthPeter Ferrara- public policy at Forbes- 4413- (Progressive Keynesian Myths Debunked The Coming Redistribution of Political and Economic Power Among the States Forbes httpwwwforbescomsitespeterferrara20130414progressive-keynesian-myths-debunked-the-coming-redistribution-of-political-and-ec)S

The myth of Keynesian economics is based on a failure to take into account basic double entry bookkeeping If the government spends more where does the money for that increased spending come from Either from increased borrowing or increased taxes which both take an equal amount of resources and spending out of the private economy as they finance in increased government spending So not only can there not be a net increase in aggregate or total demand from these policies the spending is in truth a net drag on growth as the private economy spends money more productively and efficiently than the government That is why this Keynesian nostrum never worked in the 1930s as the recession of 1929 extended into the decade long Great Depression and it hasnrsquot worked anywhere else since

Keynesian economics weaken the economyTim Worstall- a Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London- 2012- (Failed Keynesianism caused the economic crisis The Telegraph httpblogstelegraphcoukfinancetimworstall100018262failed-keynesianism-caused-the-economic-crisis)S

Professors Paul Krugman and Richard Layard have launched a manifesto - they are trying to get economists to sign up to their version of what went wrong with the world economy and what we should do about it I cant sign it as Im not an economist But even if I were I wouldnt ndash because theyve made a very

34


bad error in the analysis of the basic cause of the crisispara Leave entirely aside their advice on what should be done now Id argue that what went wrong is the perfect proof of why Keynesian demand management of the economy will never work Heres an extract from Krugman and Layardpara The causes Many policy makers insist that the crisis was caused by irresponsible public borrowing With very few exceptions ndash other than Greece ndash this is false Instead the conditions for crisis were created by excessive private sector borrowing and lending including by over-leveraged banks The collapse of this bubble led to massive falls in output and thus in tax revenue So the large government deficits we see today are a consequence of the crisis not its causepara Think back to what basic Keynesianism demands fiscal policy the gap between what the government collects in taxes and what it spends should be counter-cyclical When demand is weak as now there should be a big deficit to compensatepara However it is also true that when demand is strong the same theory insists that there should be a large surplus Nigel Lawsons Public Sector Debt Repayment should be going onpara These are two halves of the same theory If you want a budget deficit in a slump then you must also want a budget surplus in a boom

35


36


Impact Debate

37


MPX ndash War Economic decline leads to conflict ndash multiple warrantsMansfield and Pollins 03 (Edward Deering Hum Rosen Professor of Political Science Chair of the Political Science Department and Director of the Christopher H Browne Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania Brian M Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University and a Research Fellow at the Mershon Center Economic Interdependence and International Conflictpara New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate University of Michigan Press httpbooksgooglecombookshl=enamplr=ampid=L53fR-TusZACampoi=fndamppg=PR5ampdq=22economic+engagement22+2B+economyampots=Ew9trq6DvCampsig=9t0FLFv90VxA0Tc4xsiBBrpCYVgv=onepageampq=22economic20engagement22202B20economyampf=false MWH)

Central to much of the literature on interdependence and conflict is the long-standing claim that open international markets and heightened economic exchange inhibit interstate hostilities liberals have been the most forceful advocates of this thesis and have stressed a variety of different causal mecha-nisms in developing it One argumentmdashcast primarily at the level of the nation-statemdashis that economic exchange and military conquest are substitute means of acquiring the resources needed to promote political security and eco-nomic growth (eg Staley t939) As trade and foreign investment increase there are fewer incentives to meet these needs through territorial expansion imperialism and foreign conquest (Rosecrance 1986) Conversely barriers to para international economic activity stimulate conflicts of interest that can con- tribute to political-military discord Winer 1951 259) Another liberal argu-mentmdashcast largely at the level of the country-pair or dyadmdashis that economic intercourse increases contact and promotes communication between private actors in different countries as well as between governments Rising contact and communication in turn are expected to foster cooperative political rela-tions (Doyle 1997 chap 8 Hirschman 1977 61 Stein 1993 Viner 1951 261) Still another theme stressed by many liberals is that commercial openness generates efficiency gains that in turn render private traders and consumers dependent on foreign markets Because political antagonism risks disrupting economic relations among participants and jeopardizing the gains from trade these actors have reason to press public officials to avoid military conflicts For their part public officialsmdashwho rely on societal actors for political support and have an interest in bolstering their countrys economic performancemdashhave reason to attend to such demands This argument which is addressed at length in the following chapters has been a centerpiece of liberal views on war for cen-turies Montesquieu for example claimed that the natural effect of commerce is to lead to peace Two nations that trade together become mutually depen-dent if one has an interest in buying the other has an interest in selling and all unions are based on mutual needs (quoted in Hirschman 1977 So) Whereas Montesquieus claim centers on bilateral relations the argument that height-ened economic dependence inhibits belligerence has also been cast at the sys-temic level of analysis As Barry B117311 (1984 598) mentions a colt element of the liberal position is that a liberal economic order makes a substantial and positive contribution to the maintenance of international security

38


MPX ndash AT US Not K2 Global ECON US economy key to global economyMichael Schuman- Time- Wall Street Journal and a staff writer for Forbes- University of Pennsylvania and a master of international affairs from Columbia 2011(What the US debt deal means for the global economy Time- business and moneyhttpbusinesstimecomauthormichaeljschumanixzz2YfgcUuvp)S

But just as a default by the US would have had an outsized impact on the global economy due to the unique position of America in the world a deal struck to alter the direction of fiscal policy will also have a tremendous effect The decisions made (or in this case not made) by Washington in the debt agreement will reverberate through the world economy for years to comepara First of all in the short term we can all forget about US fiscal policy being employed to stimulate the anemic recovery in the worldrsquos largest economy The debt deal by capping annual appropriations and imposing $24 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade takes any hope of further stimulus off the table We can debate whether or not thatrsquos a good idea With US GDP growth at an annualized rate of a mere 13 in the second quarter and unemployment still astronomical at 92 some economists have been arguing the US needs more spending not cutting to keep the recovery alive But Washington has chosen fiscal repair over economic repair That means a lot to Americans ndash especially those millions still looking for work ndash but it also means a lot to the rest of the world Companies and workers from southern China to southern Africa depend on the giant US economy so a slow recovery in the US eats into growth prospects everywhere else even roaring emerging markets like China (The HSBC purchasing managersrsquo index for China fell below 50 for the first time in a year in July a sign that its manufacturing sector is slowing)

US future growth key to worldrsquos economiesDon Lee Tribune Washington Bureau- 2010- (Global economy again depending on the American consumer Chicago Tribune Business httparticleschicagotribunecom2010-06-20businessct-biz-0620-global-economy-20100620_1_consumer-debt-global-economy-american-consumer)S

WASHINGTON mdash mdash With Europeans cutting back their spending and China again flooding the world with low-cost goods a familiar and ominous pattern is re-emerging in the global economy Americans are again being cast as the worlds consumers of last resortpara para And with unemployment still pushing 10 percent and workers incomes largely flat that may be a prescription for new trouble Although Europes debt crisis has quieted and the US and global economies are projected to rebound this year future growth will depend on changing the spending patterns of the worlds biggest economies mdash none more so than Americas

US economy crucial to stability of the world economy European Central Bank- March 2009 (The Role of the United States in the Global Economy and its evolution over time European Central Bank httpwwwecbeuropaeupubpdfscpwpsecbwp1034pdf)S

The US Economy is often seen as the ldquoenginerdquo of the world economy As a result any sign of slowdown in the United States raises concerns about harmful spillovers to the other economies The current economic recession in the United States has questioned the ability of the global economy to ldquodecouplerdquo from US cynical developments While there were some signs of decoupling in the first quarters following the US downturn they disappeared rapidly towards the end of 2008 when the crisis became more global and the economic cycles turned out to be more synchronous across the world

39


40


MPX ndash Poverty

Economic downturn causes ldquodeep povertyrdquoSharon Parrott- 2008 Secretary Sebeliusrsquo Counselor for Human Services Policy at the US Department of Health and Human Services Vice President for Budget Policy and Economic Opportunity (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Recession Could Cause Large Increases in Poverty and Push Millions into Deep Poverty httpwwwcbpporgcmsindexcfmfa=viewampid=1290)S

Like previous recessions the current downturn is likely to cause significant increases both in the number of Americans who are poor and the number living in ldquodeep povertyrdquo with incomes below half of the poverty line Because this recession is likely to be deep and the government safety net for very poor families who lack jobs has weakened significantly in recent years increases in deep poverty in this recession are likely to be severe There are a series of steps that federal and state policymakers could take to soften the recessionrsquos harshest impacts and limit the extent of the increases in deep poverty destitution and homelessness[1]para Goldman Sachs projects that the unemployment rate will rise to 9 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009 (the firm has increased its forecast for the unemployment rate a couple of times in the last month) If this holds true and the increase in poverty relative to the increase in unemployment is within the range of the last three recessions the number of poor Americans will rise above its 2006 level by 84-109 million the number of poor children will rise by 26-39 million and the number of children in deep poverty will climb by 15-24 million (This increase will not take place in a single year but will occur over several years)

Poverty is the deadliest form of structural violence ndash it is equivalent to an ongoing nuclear war Gilligan 96rsquo [James Former Director of Mental Health for the Massachusetts Prison System Violence p]

In other words every fifteen years on the average as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear that caused 232 million deaths and every single year two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six- year period This is in effect the equivalent of an ongoing unenending in fact accelerating thermonuclear war or genocide perpetuated on the weak and poor ever year of every decade throughout the world

41


42


AFF Answers

43


NU ndash Economy Low US and global economy are declining ndash IMF provesLee and Puzzanghera 79 (Don writer for Chicago Tribune Jim writer for Chicago Tribune IMF lowers US and global economic growth forecasts Chicago Tribune httpwwwchicagotribunecombusinessla-fi-imf-world-economy-2013071005885679story MWH)

The slowdown in developing economies has been building for some time but has captured greater attention recently because of Chinas credit crunch and the prospects of monetary policy tightening by the US Federal Reservepara On Tuesday the International Monetary Fund cut its US and global economic forecasts for this year and next citing primarily slower growth in key developing nations as well as a deepening recession in the Eurozone The IMF also noted that federal spending reductions in the US were weighing on the recovery para The world economy will grow 31 this year the Washington-based IMF said down from its April projection of 33 Growth also will be slower next year mdash 38 compared with an earlier 4 forecastpara The IMF estimated that the US economy would expand at a modest 17 rate this year and pick up next year to 27 Both figures also are down 02 percentage points from the organizations projections in its April World Economic Outlookpara Although part of the reason for the change in the US forecast is the automatic federal spending cuts known as the sequester the US economy and particularly American export manufacturers are likely to feel a pinch from slower growth in developing and emerging market economies

Even if they win that the economy is recovering now itrsquos bad compared to its state before the recessionPapadimitriou president of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and executive vice president of Bard 13 (Dimitri What the economy needs is even more deficit spending Deseret News httpwwwdeseretnewscomarticle765626414What-the-economy-needs-is-even-more-deficit-spendinghtmlpg=all MWH)

The Federal Reserve for one just reduced its growth outlook to 28 percent at most for 2013 The shallow recovery were seeing may indeed continue through 2014 and beyond Since employment now consistently lags well behind GDP well have a long slog before we reach pre-crisis unemployment levels (below 46 percent) Some Federal Reserve officials believe it might take three years just to get from todays 76 percent down to 65 percent Full employment would still be nowhere in sight

44


NU ndash Spending Low US Government cutting spending now- multiple sectorsCalmes 5-5 (Jackie Obama Budget to Include Cuts to Programs in Hopes of Deal NY Times JH httpwwwnytimescom20130405ussocial-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budgethtmlhpamp_r=1amp

President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal administration officials say In a significant shift in fiscal strategy Mr Obama on Wednesday will send a budget plan to Capitol Hill that departs from the usual presidential wish list that Republicans typically declare dead on arrival Instead it will embody the final compromise offer that he made to Speaker John A Boehner late last year before Mr Boehner abandoned negotiations in opposition to the presidentrsquos demand for higher taxes from wealthy individuals and some corporationspara Congressional Republicans have dug in against any new tax revenues after higher taxes for the affluent were approved at the start of the year The administrationrsquos hope is to create cracks in Republicansrsquo antitax resistance especially in the Senate as constituents complain about the across-the-board cuts in military and domestic programs that took effect March 1para Mr Obamarsquos proposed deficit reduction would replace those cuts And if Republicans continue to resist the president the White House believes that most Americans will blame them for the fiscal paralysis

Spending Low now and falling- the sequesterEconomist 7-6 (Squeezing the Pentagon The Economist JH httpwwweconomistcomnewsunited-states21580460-wrong-way-cut-americas-military-budget-squeezing-pentagonzid=309ampah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e)

Those cutsmdash$500 billion over the next nine years on top of $487 billion already under waymdashwere designed to be so painful that they would force Republicans to do a budget deal with Barack Obama to avoid them But it turns out that Republicans hate taxes even more than they love the armed forces No deal was reached On March 1st the sequester began Struggling to find savings of $37 billion in the rest of this fiscal year the Pentagon is at last making serious plans This month it is expected to produce a report outlining the impact of the $52 billion-worth of cuts that are heading its way for the next fiscal year which begins in Octoberpara The presidentrsquos 2014 defense budget request published in April made no concession to the spending caps demanded by the BCA Unrevised it would mean that the cuts would either be applied by Congress (highly unlikely) or imposed across the board That would make it impossible for the Pentagon to set priorities outdated programs would be over-funded and vital new ones starved of cash

Government spending is falling the sequester is expected again next year Bartel Staff writer at the Virginian-Pilot 7-4 (Bill Admiral Brace for similar sequester impact in 2014 PilotOnline JH httphamptonroadscom201307admiral-brace-similar-sequester-impact-2014

Adm Jonathan Greenert chief of naval operations told gatherings of Hampton Roads-based sailors and regional business and political leaders Wednesday that unless Congress intercedes hes preparing for 2014 to be much like this year with reductions in some military operations and ship construction and repairs and the possibility of more civilian furloughspara During a one-day visit to the region Greenert the Navys top officer voiced strong support for Oceana Naval Air Station which several years ago was considered for closing because of urban encroachment and for Newport News nuclear shipbuilding operationspara In a morning all-hands meeting with about 950 sailors and Marines at Oceana and a noon Hampton Roads Chamber Commerce luncheon in Virginia Beach the admiral acknowledged he expects that a divided Congress wont approve an annual budget before the new fiscal year starts Oct 1 He also said he doubts lawmakers will stop the second year of automatic defense budget cuts known as sequestration

45


AC ndash QE Alt cause ndash quantitative easingHwang reporter for Bloomberg 6-25 2013 (Inyoung US Stocks Rebound From Nine-Week Low on Economic Data Bloomberg httpwwwbloombergcomnews2013-06-25u-s-stock-futures-gain-indicating-s-p-500-reboundhtml MWH)

ldquoQE lifted all boatsrdquo Witold Bahrke who helps oversee $55 billion as a senior strategist at PFA Pension AS in Copenhagen wrote in an e-mail ldquoEqually its removal will shake all markets The recent comments from central-bank officials show that they are a bit scared about the consequences of their own words and do not want to see a cold-turkey reaction in markets in the context of a still-fragile world economyrdquo

46


Keynes Good Stimulus is key to the economy - jobsPapadimitriou president of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and executive vice president of Bard 13 (Dimitri What the economy needs is even more deficit spending Deseret News httpwwwdeseretnewscomarticle765626414What-the-economy-needs-is-even-more-deficit-spendinghtmlpg=all MWH)

Despite prevailing notions in the capital and throughout the nation those of us at the Levy Economics Institute mdash along with many other analysts and economists mdash have concluded that the deficit should be increasedpara Why add to the deficit right now Jobs Our economic models clearly show that without increased government outlays well be unable to generate enough GDP growth to seriously attack unemployment If we tried to balance the budget through tax hikes our still-recovering economy would be hurt That leaves a temporarily bigger deficit as an important optionpara A mutation in the link between growth and jobs makes the issue urgent While we are seeing some economic growth the unemployment rate is not responding as strongly to the gains as it did in the past para This slow job growth mdash todays jobless recovery mdash isnt an outlier Its a phenomenon that has been increasing over the last three decades with jobs coming back more and more slowly after a downturn even when GDP is increasing The weak employment response has been an almost straight-line trend for more than 30 years

Stimulus is good ndash empirics provePapadimitriou president of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and executive vice president of Bard 13 (Dimitri What the economy needs is even more deficit spending Deseret News httpwwwdeseretnewscomarticle765626414What-the-economy-needs-is-even-more-deficit-spendinghtmlpg=all MWH)

The Federal Reserve for one just reduced its growth outlook to 28 percent at most for 2013 The shallow recovery were seeing may indeed continue through 2014 and beyond Since employment now consistently lags well behind GDP well have a long slog before we reach pre-crisis unemployment levels (below 46 percent) Some Federal Reserve officials believe it might take three years just to get from todays 76 percent down to 65 percent Full employment would still be nowhere in sightpara The quantitative data are telling us that without a stimulus we cant expect a strong employment lift But instead of stimulus were devising federal budgets that cut spending and lay off workers The sequester is expected to depress GDP growth by perhaps half a percentage point mdash when we know that more growth than ever will be needed to raise employment mdash and cost anywhere from 700000 to more than 1 million jobspara Slower government spending is one reason that post-recession growth has been below par compared with other recoveries Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen has argued As government outlays and employment have shrunk the contribution of public funds to national growth has also fallen By our estimates that contribution now stands at about zero Thats another data point indicating that federal deficits need to be increased

Spending stimulates the economy-The Week 22409 (How Spending Stimulates the Economy The Week httptheweekcomarticleindex93614how-spending-stimulates) S

will the Obama deficit-spending plan work Will throwing $800 billionmdash$500 billion in extra government spending and $300 billion in tax cutsmdashat the economy produce a world in which production and employment are higher and unemployment lower than would otherwise have been the case The short answer is yes The short reason is that spending worksmdasheras in which some group or other gets excited about future prospects and starts madly spending money are eras in which production and employment are high and unemployment is low And the government in this respect is just like any other group of starry-eyed optimists whose eagerness to spend pulls the economy into a

47


high-employment high-pressure boom Consider the engines of previous boosts to production and employment Between 2003 and 2005 the assembled investors of the world discovered the American housing market Low interest rates produced by the Federal Reserve allowed them to borrow and leverage up cheaplymdashand the promise of financial engineering that would greatly help them diversify risk made them think investing in new construction and new homeownersrsquo moves into new construction was a profit opportunity Spending on home construction rose And the adult civilian employment to population ratio rose from 62 percent to 635 percent while the unemployment rate fell from 60 percent to 48 percent Between 1996 and 1998 the assembled investors of America discovered the Internet and spent enormous sums to exploit and expand it And the adult civilian employment to population ratio rose from 63 percent to nearly 65 percent as the unemployment rate fell 56 percent to 43 percent In August 1982 Paul Volckerrsquos Federal Reserve released the interest-rate chokehold it had been using to strangle the economy Lower interest rates induced homebuilders to spend massively since for the first time in nearly half a decade they could obtain financing for construction At the same time the Reagan administration ramped up defense spending for the second cold war and luxury spending rose as the Reagan tax cuts gave money back to Americarsquos rich The adult employment-to-population ratio rocketed up from 572 percent to 599 percent in the short order of two years while the unemployment rate fell from 108 percent to 73 percent These are just three examples of a general principle each major business-cycle expansion we have seen has been driven by a leading wave of spendingmdashby some group that became enthusiastic about their prospects and decided to greatly increase its spending And that pulled employment and production up Now we are attempting to do the same thing once againmdashbut this time with the government as the leading spender Obamarsquos stimulus spending increases are bigger as a share of the economy than Reaganrsquos defense increases were while Obamarsquos tax cuts are smaller Unlike 1983 when the Fed cut interest rates to help Reaganrsquos economic recovery it cannot do so to help Obama The Fed has done all the cutting it can Still a boost to spending by the government should have the same effects as boosts to spending by luxury consumers and the defense department and homebuilders in the early 1980s by the high-tech sector in the late 1990s and by homebuilders in the mid-2000s The governmentrsquos money after all is as good as anybody elsersquos So there is little question about the likely impact of the Obama deficit-spending program production and employment are going to be higher than they would have been otherwise As Greg Mankiw the former chief economic adviser to George W Bush said back in 1983 ldquoThere is nothing novel about this It is very conventional short-run stabilization policy You can find it in all of the leading textbooksrdquo para

Spending key to economic growth-Ezra Klein columnist at the Washington Post as well as a contributor to MSNBC-January 2013 (Government is hurting the economy mdash by spending too little The Washington Post httpwwwwashingtonpostcomblogswonkblogwp20130130government-is-hurting-the-economy-by-spending-too-little) S

Yoursquove heard this before The government is holding the economy back And itrsquos true The newly released numbers for economic growth in the fourth quarter which show the economy shrinking at an 01 percent annual rate prove that But exactly what the government is doing to hold the economy back might surprise youpara Typically when people say the government is hurting the recovery they mean that deficits are too high and uncertainty over future policy is scaring businesses But therersquos little evidence of thatpara The main reason to worry about deficits is that theyrsquoll hike interest rates as government borrowing crowds out private borrowing and that makes it harder for businesses to grow and individuals to invest But interest rates are about as low as theyrsquove ever been After accounting for inflation the federal government has been able to borrow at an unprecedented negative inflation-adjusted rate mdash so the market is essentially paying us to keep their money safe mdash since 2011para As such most deficit hawks warn that the problem with our deficits is that markets might at some point in the future move unpredictably and swiftly to punish us for our deficits Perhaps thatrsquos true But implicit in that argument is that therersquos no real evidence that deficits are hurting the economy nowpara Nor is there strong evidence that businesses are holding back on investment for any reason save lack of demand The general factoid you hear in support of this argument is that

48


corporations are sitting on more than $25 trillion in cash with the implication being that theyrsquod be spending that cash if not for the paralyzing effects of federal policyBut the build-up of cash reserves mdash or to be more technical (and more accurate) ldquoliquid assetsrdquo mdash is a long-term trend that hasnrsquot accelerated since the recession The Federal Reserve keeps data on liquid assets held by non-financial corporations and the build-up was faster from 1997 to 2000 than it was from 2008 to 2011 Why corporations are holding so much more cash is an interesting mystery but itrsquos not one that began with the passage of Obamacarepara A big reason for this is cutbacks on the state and local level which have been much larger than cutbacks at the federal level In 2010 for instance federal spending took 023 percentage points off GDP while state and local spending took 043 percentage points off As such Washington often misses the overall contraction in government spending as the bulk of that contraction has been at the state and local levels But federal spending has been contracting tooAnother way of looking at this data is to compare the contribution of private spending and public spending to economic growth Here are those numbers since 2009 Economists expect that to continue Mark Zandi of Moodyrsquos Analytics projects the sequester alone will cut 05 percentage points off growth in 2013 if itrsquos allowed to go into effect Add that to the expiration of the payroll tax cut and assorted other belt-tightening measures at the federal level and total fiscal drag he says is likely to be more than one percentage point of GDP in 2013 mdash a significant hit when total GDP growth isnrsquot expected to be above three percentage pointspara These numbers by the way only measure the most direct contribution of government spending They donrsquot measure indirect contributions as when a defense contractor uses money from his federal contract to buy a house His house purchase wouldrsquove shown up in private investment not public investment but its absence doesnrsquot show up anywhere at allSo yes the government is hurting the recovery But itrsquos not because of deficits or uncertainty or at least itrsquos hard to find evidence for either theory The real provable damage the government has done to economic growth in recent years has been in cutting back on spending and investment since 2010

49


No Link ndash FA Foreign Aid isnrsquot deficit spending AMFAR- foundation for making aids history- for aids research March 2013 (The Evidence on US Investments in Foreign Aids amFAR httpwwwamfarorguploadedFiles_amfarorgArticlesOn_The_Hill2013IB20Foreign20Aidpdf)

Cuts in foreign aid spending would not make a meaningful para contribution to deficit reduction Foreign aid accounts for only para about one percent of US government spending 1para with poverty focused development and humanitarian spending representing para roughly 05 percent of federal outlays2para The share of the federal para budget allocated to foreign assistance has substantially declined para over time falling by almost 80 percent since 1965 peace in strife-torn regions and helps countries recover from para conflict14 Foreign aid programs support counterterrorism para efforts destroy dangerous weapons (such as mines small para arms or shoulder-fired missiles) and train law enforcement para agents13 The powerful security potential of US foreign aid para is illustrated in Vietnam where it has helped convert a former para enemy into a genuine partner in one of the worldrsquos most para strategically important regions

50


AT Biz Con Turn ndash business leaders view Latin America as a valuable investmentInstitute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales 13 (Business Prospects in Latin America ICAEW httpwwwicaewcommembersresources-for-businessbusiness-managementcustomers-and-marketsoverseas-marketslatin-america-promotionutm_source=websiteamputm_medium=rhcamputm_content=apr13amputm_campaign=latinamerica MWH)

Business optimism is high not just in Brazil but in Peru Chile and Mexico A Grant Thornton survey conducted in 2012 puts Peru at number one globally for business confidence The firmrsquos research also reports that 22 of businesses surveyed worldwide are considering expansion into the region this year Across Latin America as a whole there are strong expectations for increased investment in plant construction and RampD in 2013 para Colombia is the fourth largest economy in Latin America and might be worth considering too The country is rich in natural resources and analysts predict strong growth in the light of improved security an increase in mining activity and strong commodity pricespara Mexico is one of the top five global emerging economies It offers a large internal consumer market and with its proximity to the US is an attractive alternative to China as a manufacturing base

Turn ndash business leaders view Latin America as a valuable investmentWelber president and CEO of Chevy Chase Trust Co 11 (Peter CEO of ASB Capital Management and a director of Chevy Chase Trust Co and ASB Capital Management member of the Economic Club of Washington board chairman of the Montgomery County Community Foundation Why theres investment potential in Latin America Washington Business Journal httpwwwbizjournalscomwashingtonblog201102why-theres-investment-potential-inhtml MWH)

A couple of weeks ago while lamenting the onset of cold weather here in Washington I discussed the investment potential of Latin America Since winter does not appear to be ending any time soon thinking about Latin America still has appeal While our current local climate in the Washington DC area may not be sunny the business climate in Latin America is certainly heating uppara One of the more telling economic statistics is the GDP per capita number The international experience is that once this number hits the $3000 level countries typically will begin to see the development of a middle class Once $5000 is achieved a critical mass develops and middle class growth takes off The latest World Bank data - using a constant year 2000 US$ - shows that Chile achieved this middle class growth phase in 2002 and Brazil ending 2009 at $4419 will soon be there Meanwhile Colombia with a GDP per capita of $3102 is at the beginning stages of developing a domestic middle class consumer economy and Peru is not far behind at $2913 (as a comparison the two emerging market headliners of China and India have GDP per capita levels of $2206 and $757 respectively)para With the burgeoning middle class the regions domestic economies are beginning to take shape and business confidence is increasing In an investment world fraught with uncertainty and risk Latin America with its growth potential could contain some unique opportunities for investors

51


AT Impact ndash ECON Decline Doesnrsquot =gt War Studies prove ndash economic decline doesnrsquot produce warMiller 00 Morris economist adjunct professor in the University of Ottawarsquos Faculty of Administration consultant on international development issues former Executive Director and Senior Economist at the World Bank Winter Interdisciplinary Science Reviews Vol 25 Iss 4 ldquoPoverty as a cause of warsrdquo p Proquest

The question may be reformulated Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes Perhaps one could argue as some scholars do that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that in turn leads to this deplorable denouement This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or if need be fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik

of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since

the Second World War they concluded that1 9 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth -

bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes (or in democratic states rarely) to an outbreak of violence In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another)

Economic decline doesnrsquot lead to war ndash democracy checksRajan IMF Chief Economist and Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago 13 (Raghuram chief economic adviser in Indiarsquos finance ministry Chairman of Indiarsquos Committee on Financial Sector Reforms Conflict Management and Economic Growth Project Syndicate httpwwwproject-syndicateorgcommentaryunderdevelopment-and-the-institutions-of-social-peace-by-raghuram-rajanBVLpZ7vjOebdrhZZ99 MWH)

NEW DELHI ndash One of the most interesting aspects of the prolonged economic crisis in Europe and of the even longer crisis in Japan is the absence of serious social conflict ndash at least thus far Yes there have been strikes marches and growing anger at political leaders but protests have been largely peacefulWhile that may change the credit for social peace must go to institutions such as elections (ldquothrowing the rascals outrdquo is a non-violent way to vent popular anger) responsive democratic legislatures and effective judiciaries All of these institutions have successfully mediated political conflict during a time of great adversity in advanced countries

52


AT Impact ndash ECON Resilient Americarsquos economy is resilient ndash a free market can easily adjust to shocksConnerly PhD in economics from Duke University 12 (Bill Senior Vice President at First Interstate Bank awarded the Chartered Financial Analyst designation in 1999 on-line contributor to Forbes and the author of Businomics a book about economics for business leaders chairman of the board of Cascade Policy Institute a member of Oregon Governor John Kitzhaberrsquos Council of Economic Advisors Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis Americarsquos Resilient Economy What Happens When Things Go Wrong Forbes httpwwwforbescomsitesbillconerly20120723americas-resilient-economy-what-happens-when-things-go-wrong MWH)

Americarsquos economy is certainly in a tender state But the pessimism of the presidential slanging-match misses something vital Led by its inventive private sector the economy is remaking itself (see article) Old weaknesses are being remedied and new strengths discovered with an agility that has much to teach stagnant Europe and dirigiste Asia para The point that The Economist is close tomdashbut does not quite reachmdashis that the measure of an economy is not whether they get the decisions right Those important decisions are about how to use their resources what to make in what methods and for what markets The measure of an economy is what happens when they get their decisions wrong para As an example we got housing wrong a few years back The private sector believed that housing prices would rise steadily and thus that loans backed by housing could not go wrong even if the borrowers had poor credit Having learned a lesson we reacted para The Economist notes that we have a huge natural gas production increase Our private profit-motivated energy sector reacts quickly to opportunities One reason the world is not awash in petroleum is that in many countries governments have taken over oil and natural gas production Decisions are slow and politically motivated para A profit-motivated economy adjusts quickly Who would have thought that the iPhone would revolutionize communications What did our economy do after the iPhone Google developed the Android operating system Microsoft developed smart phone software and Blackberry improved their Internet capabilities para These decisions were not all correct However they are part of a self-correcting system In contrast the most politicized parts of our economy are the least self-correcting For example even though private sector lenders are now cautious about home buyers with bad credit the Federal Housing Administration has increased its role in helping people who donrsquot qualify for conventional financing When the price of oil and natural gas was highly regulated back in the 1970s petroleum production failed to respond to rising prices

No impact to US economic decline ndash social safety nets check conflictRajan IMF Chief Economist and Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago 13 (Raghuram chief economic adviser in Indiarsquos finance ministry Chairman of Indiarsquos Committee on Financial Sector Reforms Conflict Management and Economic Growth Project Syndicate httpwwwproject-syndicateorgcommentaryunderdevelopment-and-the-institutions-of-social-peace-by-raghuram-rajanBVLpZ7vjOebdrhZZ99 MWH)

Societies with well-functioning institutions allocate the burden of distress in predictable ways For example people who suffer the most adversity can fall back on an explicit social safety net ndash a minimum level of unemployment insurance for example In the United States in recent years federal and state legislatures prolonged unemployment benefits as joblessness persisted para Similarly debtors and creditors can rely on credible bankruptcy proceedings to determine their relative shares With an explicit institutional mechanism in place to dictate the division of pain there is no need to take to the streets

53


Turn ndash War

Economic growth necessitates the government to expropriate minoritiesrsquo property rights that leads to armed conflictLawson-Remer Fellow of Council on Foreign Relations assistant professor of international affairs at The New School fellow of Harvard Law School 11 (Terra Property Insecurity Conflict and Long-Run Growth httpssrncomabstract=2000036m MWH)

Yet historically economic development has often involved the expropriation of land and para resources from ethno-cultural minorities and the reallocation of these resources into the para hands of elites The widespread establishment of small freehold farms for white settlers para across the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries required displacing the para Cherokee Creek Seminole and Choctaw tribes who were either killed or forced into para marginal land Dispossession was official government policy Congress passed thepara Indian Removal Act in 1830 by 1840 over 50000 Native Americans had been forciblypara relocated from the American Southwest opening 25 million acres for settlementpara (Thornton 1984) The widely lauded security of property rights enjoyed by yeomanpara American farmers in the 19th century (Engerman and Sokoloff 1997 2002) was madepara possible by insecure property rights for Native Americanspara At the same time expropriation of land and resources from marginalized groups can para increase the likelihood of armed conflict Insecure property rights are often the source para of anti- government grievances motivating dispossessed groups to rebel Chiapaspara provides the rest of Mexico with essential resources including oil timber cattle cornpara sugar coffee and beans (Collier and Quaratiello 1999) The Zapatista uprising in para Chiapas throughout the 1990rsquos may be traced in part to the accelerating loss of para communal land tenure rights and displacement of indigenous groups by more politically para connected local caudillos who were seeking to exploit these valuable resources para commercially (Collier and Quaratiello 1999 Harvey 2005 1998)

Economic growth requires the government to allocate resources to societyrsquos elite ndash that leads to instability and armed conflictLawson-Remer Fellow of Council on Foreign Relations assistant professor of international affairs at The New School fellow of Harvard Law School 11 (Terra Property Insecurity Conflict and Long-Run Growth httpssrncomabstract=2000036m MWH)

When heterogeneity of property rights enjoyment is considered the historical datapara shows that property insecurity of ethno-cultural minorities does not reduce long-runpara economic development Economic growth can occur when the property rights of elites para are secure but marginalized minorities face high a risk of expropriation because land is para reallocated into the hands of investors with access to capital At the same time the para severity of property insecurity for the worst-off group in a country is strongly correlated para with the onset of armed conflict suggesting that severe property insecurity for para marginalized minorities tends to precipitate armed conflict Finally controlling for civilpara war property insecurity is associated with higher long-run growth Taken togetherpara these finding suggest that reallocating resources and property into the hands of morepara efficient investors through forced displacement and resettlement is potentially growthenhancingpara but this growth effect is mitigated because property insecurity alsopara generates conflict which reduces growth In other words property insecurity of nonelites para

can be compatible with or even enhance economic growth but also encourages para conflict1048754which can undermine long-run growth and economic development Whosepara property rights are secure and insecure matters fundamentally for the political andpara economic implications of expropriation risk

54


Government abuses underlie economic growth ndash that reverses all gains and makes poverty inevitable ndash PNG provesLawson-Remer Fellow of Council on Foreign Relations assistant professor of international affairs at The New School fellow of Harvard Law School 11 (Terra Property Insecurity Conflict and Long-Run Growth httpssrncomabstract=2000036m MWH)

The link between property insecurity growth and conflict is apparent in the violent para separatist conflict that engulfed Bougainville Papua New Guinea (PNG) from 1988-para 1997 Traditionally land in Bougainville was collectively owned through matrilineal clan para lineages with use rights shared by all members and ownership inalienable and para nontransferable Copper was discovered in Bougainville in the mid-1960s and the PNG para government claimed the minerals - selling the Panguna copper mining concession topara Bougainville Copper Ltd a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Ltd The government forcibly para relocated entire villages and excluded Bougainville from the revenue-sharing para agreements it negotiated with Rio Tinto The prioritization of the statersquos and the corporationrsquos property rights at the expense of the Boungainvilleansrsquo initially generated para high economic returns from 1972 to 1989 the Panguna mine contributed 16 of Papuapara New Guinarsquos GDP and 44 of its exports However in 1988 the convergence of para grievances regarding the effects of mining the inequitable allocation of revenues and para long-standing political exclusion provoked a group of marginalized Bougainvilleans to para attack a number of Rio Tontorsquos buildings destroying the minersquos power supply Seeing the economic lifeline of the country as under an existential threat and believing a strong para preemptive response would deter further opposition the PNG government responded para with a military crackdown The indiscriminate violence polarized the Bougainvillean para population fueling a widely supported ethno-nationalist rebellion with separatist aims para The mine was closed in 1989 due to the uprising and the conflict intensified through thepara 1990s By 1996 between 15000 and 20000 civilians and combatants had been killed para in the conflict and another 60000 people displaced The war also resulted in the para cessation of all economic activity roughly 10000 mining jobs and 10000 more in thepara cocoa and copra sectors were lost and significant mining and transportationpara infrastructure destroyed The economic impact of the minersquos closure the direct costs of para the conflict and the indirect costs of lost growth opportunities incited a severe fiscal crisis in PNG by the mid-1990s (Regan 2003) In Bougainville the growth enhancingpara prioritization of elitesrsquo property rights were undermined by violent conflict

55


Turn ndash Trade Bad Increasing trade produces asymmetrical relationships ndash that leads to warMansfield and Pollins 03 (Edward Deering Hum Rosen Professor of Political Science Chair of the Political Science Department and Director of the Christopher H Browne Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania Brian M Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University and a Research Fellow at the Mershon Center Economic Interdependence and International Conflictpara New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate University of Michigan Press httpbooksgooglecombookshl=enamplr=ampid=L53fR-TusZACampoi=fndamppg=PR5ampdq=22economic+engagement22+2B+economyampots=Ew9trq6DvCampsig=9t0FLFv90VxA0Tc4xsiBBrpCYVgv=onepageampq=22economic20engagement22202B20economyampf=false MWH)

However the liberal view has been criticized by mercantilists and many realists who insist that unfettered economic exchange can undermine national security Albert 0 Hirschman (119451 1980) for example has pointed out that the gains from trade often do not accrue to states proportionately and that the distribution of these gains can affect interstate power relations Shifting power relations in turn are widely regarded as a potent source of military conflict (Gilpin 1981 Levy 1989 Mearsheirner 199o) In the same vein the extent to which trade partners depend on their commercial relationship often varies substantially among the constituent states If one partner depends on a trading relationship much more heavily than another partner the costs associated with attenuating or severing the relationship are far lower for the latter than the for-mer state Under these circumstances trade may do little to inhibit the less dependent state front initiating hostilities Another challenge to the liberal thesis emphasizes that states have political reasons to minimize their dependence on foreign commerce and that military expansion offers one way to achieve this end Hence as trade flows and the extent of interdependence increase so do the incentives for states to take mili-tary actions to reduce their economic vulnerability (Gilpin 198440-41 Liber-man 1996) Consistent with such arguments Alexander Hamilton asserted in 1796 that protecting the industrial sector from foreign Competition would enhance the United States security from external danger and give rise to less frequent interruption of their peace with foreign nations than open trade policies (quoted in Earle 1986 235) Furthermore as commerce rises so does the range of economic issues over which disputes can emerge In this vein Ken-neth Waltz (1970 205 222) maintains that since close interdependence means closeness of contact and raises the prospect of at least occasional conflict the [liberal] myth of interdependence asserts a false belief about the conditions that may promote peace As such heightened interdependence may actually stimulate belligerence Finally a wide variety of studies conclude that international economic rela-tions have no systematic bearing on political conflict (Buzan 1984 Gilpin 1987 Ripsman and Blanchard 1996-97) Many of them hold that hostilities stem largely front variations in the distribution of political-military capabilities and that power relations underlie any apparent effect of economic exchange on military antagonism That economic ties among the major powers were significant prior to World War I but far less extensive prior to World War II is frequently presented as evidence that such tics have little systematic impact on armed conflict when core national interests are at stake

56

Spending DA ndash GMU

Shell

Spending DA ndash 1NC

Uniqueness ndash the economy is recovering but itrsquos on the brink ndash people are still adjusting to Fed policy

Link ndash Economic engagement involves spending

C Impact ndash Deficit spending causes economic decline

Economic collapse causes global nuclear war

Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High

US stocks breaking more records- the economy is doing well

US economy increasing steadily- markets and investors driving it up

The economy is up- producer prices and the labor market are driving it up

US labor market growing faster than expected spurring overall economic growth and confidence

US stocks set to make record highs again- the economyrsquos up

The stock marketrsquos up all round- many factors

Economy is improving ndash stock market proves

Even if the US economy is shaky itrsquos doing well compared to the rest of the world

UQ ndash Econ High ndash Stocks

US economy increasing- stocks prove

US economy rising stocks leading the way

UQ ndash Brink

Obamarsquos administrationrsquos policies put economy on brink-

The US economy is on the brink ndash fears of Fed tapering and sequestration

UQ ndash No Deficit Spending Now

No deficit spending now-

No deficit spending now- the government has a surplus

The governmentrsquos in surplus- no deficit spending

UQ ndash No Spending Now

No new spending now-

UQ ndash Deficit Decreasing Now

The deficit is decreasing now

Link Debate

Link ndash Cuba ndash BizCon

Investment in Cuba tanks business confidence ndash itrsquos viewed as dangerous

Link ndash EE ndash Generic

The plan causes an increase in spending

Economic engagement involves spending money

Link ndash EE ndash Pork Barrel

Aid is pork barrel spending

Link ndash Energy ndash Deficit $

Energy development and research- spends 172 billion

Link ndash FA ndash Deficit $

US foreign aid is deficit spending

Link ndash Trade ndash Deficit $

Trade is deficit spending


IL ndash Deficit Spending

Increased deficit spending kills the economy

Deficit spending kills the economy ndash it trades off with private profit

Spending causes economic decline

Deficit spending causes economic downturn

IL ndash Pork Barrel

Pork barrel spending bad- hurts economy

USAID- is pork barrel spending- food aid program proves

IL ndash AT Keynesian Good

Stimulus doesnrsquot improve the economy ndash their ev doesnrsquot assume the massive debt wersquove already incurred

Keynesian spending fails ndash empirics prove

They donrsquot boost the economy ndash the multiplier is too small and the government mismanages ndash empirics prove

Spending cuts provide more stimulus than spending

Keynesian economics weaken the economy

Impact Debate

MPX ndash War

Economic decline leads to conflict ndash multiple warrants

MPX ndash AT US Not K2 Global ECON

US future growth key to worldrsquos economies

US economy crucial to stability of the world economy

MPX ndash Poverty

Economic downturn causes ldquodeep povertyrdquo

Poverty is the deadliest form of structural violence ndash it is equivalent to an ongoing nuclear war

AFF Answers

NU ndash Economy Low

US and global economy are declining ndash IMF proves

Even if they win that the economy is recovering now itrsquos bad compared to its state before the recession

NU ndash Spending Low

US Government cutting spending now- multiple sectors

Spending Low now and falling- the sequester

Government spending is falling the sequester is expected again next year

AC ndash QE

Alt cause ndash quantitative easing

Keynes Good

Stimulus is key to the economy - jobs

Stimulus is good ndash empirics prove

Spending stimulates the economy-

Spending key to economic growth-

No Link ndash FA

Foreign Aid isnrsquot deficit spending

AT Biz Con

Turn ndash business leaders view Latin America as a valuable investment


AT Impact ndash ECON Decline Doesnrsquot =gt War

Studies prove ndash economic decline doesnrsquot produce war

Economic decline doesnrsquot lead to war ndash democracy checks

AT Impact ndash ECON Resilient

Americarsquos economy is resilient ndash a free market can easily adjust to shocks

No impact to US economic decline ndash social safety nets check conflict

Turn ndash War

Economic growth necessitates the government to expropriate minoritiesrsquo property rights that leads to armed conflict

Economic growth requires the government to allocate resources to societyrsquos elite ndash that leads to instability and armed conflict

Government abuses underlie economic growth ndash that reverses all gains and makes poverty inevitable ndash PNG proves

Turn ndash Trade Bad

Increasing trade produces asymmetrical relationships ndash that leads to war


2


Shell

3









4





5


6


Uniqueness Debate

7












8














9




10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







Shell

3









4





5


6


Uniqueness Debate

7












8














9




10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War














4





5


6


Uniqueness Debate

7












8














9




10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War










5


6


Uniqueness Debate

7












8














9




10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







6


Uniqueness Debate

7












8














9




10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







Uniqueness Debate

7












8














9




10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War

















8














9




10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War



















9




10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









10





11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War










11






12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War











12








13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War













13




14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









14




15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









15


16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







16


Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







Link Debate

17







18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War












18



19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War








19








20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War













20




21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









21




22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









22




23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









23




24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









24


25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







25



26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War








26






27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War











27







28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War












28




29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









29






30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War











30



31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War








31








32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War













32







33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War












33








34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War













34



35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War








35


36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







36


Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







Impact Debate

37




38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









38








39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War













39


40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







40


MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







MPX ndash Poverty





41


42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







42


AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







AFF Answers

43






44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War











44








45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War













45




46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









46








47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War













47





48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War










48



49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War








49




50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









50






51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War











51









52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War














52






53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War











53


Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War







Turn ndash War






54




55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









55




56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War









56


Shell






Uniqueness Debate

UQ ndash Econ High












UQ ndash Brink











Link Debate





























Impact Debate

MPX ndash War





MPX ndash Poverty



AFF Answers








AC ndash QE


Keynes Good





No Link ndash FA


AT Biz Con









Turn ndash War






spending disadvantage - gmu 2013

Documents