Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Econ DA /
Economy Disad Index
HINGSTMAN 4
1
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
1NC – Economy Disad
A.) UNIQUENESS –
Key indicators prove economy strong now- jobs and GDP overwhelm any negative trends
NOVAK, National Review staff writer, 7/17/2008
[Michael, "Our 'Horrible' Economy," online]
Everyone says that our economy is “horrible.” Gas for our cars is headed toward $5 a gallon. The stock
market has turned seriously downward. Unemployment is edging upward (although the unemployment
rate is still holding about even).
Yet two basic points make it difficult for this amateur to see just why our current economy is so
horrible. For me, the most important issue in any economy of any democratic republic is job growth.
In 1976, I wrote speeches for Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson (D., Wash.), in which the three main
priorities of his campaign were identified, in this order, as “Jobs, jobs, job
The second-most-important thing for a democratic society, to my mind, is that there be consistent
economic growth. The reason is that the most destructive of all human social passions is envy. If there is
no growth, the only way people have to vaunt themselves is to tear others down. (In nearly all static
societies, envy sparks immense social frictions.) In a growing economy, by contrast, people have a chance
to stop comparing themselves with their neighbors (and tearing them down). Instead, they can work as
hard as they can to meet their own goals. If their own position tomorrow will be significantly closer to
their heart’s desire than it is today, then they don’t need to care how their neighbor is doing.
A republic like the United States simply must defeat envy, and focus on a better future for each family.
The only way that can be accomplished is by reasonably consistent and gently upward economic growth.
Growth is the necessary condition for the pursuit by each of his own happiness. A happy society is a more
generous and loving society.
In this light, the U.S. — with a growing GDP from the year 2000 until today, along with a steady
growth in the number (and percentage) of people employed — is better off than almost all nations in
Europe. Whatever else is happening in the U.S. economy today, these are very good indicators.
U.S. output today is just about 40 percent higher than it was when President Clinton left office. The
nominal GDP has grown from $10 trillion at the end of 2001 to $14 trillion at the end of January 2008.
In other words, the U.S. has added to its national wealth an equivalent to the whole nominal GDP of
China (in 2007, $3.25 trillion). The U.S. today is as big as it was in 2001, plus the whole GDP of
China.
2
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
1NC – ECONOMY DISAD
B.) LINK –
Beitel, 2005
Karl Beitel, policy analyst at Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, US Farm Subsidies
and the Farm Economy: Myths, Realities, Alternatives, 8-23-05,
http://www.foodfirst.org/backgrounders/subsidies
Pursuing such alternatives is an urgent necessity. Market liberalization does not, in itself, launch
developing countries on a path of sustainable long-term growth capable of lifting their populations out of
poverty. In fact the market, left to operate free from government intervention, will only exacerbate
economic pressures in large segments of the rural farm sector, both in the US and globally. The
farm sector has historically been subjected to extensive regulatory controls, which are needed to
compensate for the market’s inherent failures. An alternative to crippling free market policies exists:
what is required is the political will to bring it about. Progressive agricultural and trade groups North
and South must move beyond the subsidy debate and unite in support of alternatives that will
sustain the world’s farmers and ecosystems.
3
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
1NC – ECONOMY DISAD
If the US slows down, the global economy won't be doing very well. In many ways, the US is the global economy. The US
accounts for 33 per cent of global output. The UK and Australia, at 5 per cent and 1 per cent of global output, are minnows. So
long as the US is booming, smaller economies can keep their heads above water. But who can keep the US's head above
water? China and India may be growing quickly, but they're still too small and not sufficiently developed to provide the
lifeboat that would be needed should the US slip up. Only the eurozone and Japan could play that role and neither would find
it easy: with limited room for manoeuvre on policy, they could easily come unstuck in the light of a US slowdown, particularly if
their currencies were to appreciate against an arthritic dollar.
Bearden, 2000 (T.E., Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How
To Solve It Quickly”, Space Energy Access Systems, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations
will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving
North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal
response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks
Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations
into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress
conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of
preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never
discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-
emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid
escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on
site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most
of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
4
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
FOOD PRICES LINK
STROKES, 2006 (BRUCE STROKES, NATIONAL JOURNAL, 3-11-06, DOHA’S WINNERS AND LOSERS)
Contrary to conventional wisdom that poor-country farmers have the most to gain from ending rich-country agricultural
subsidies and protection, developing countries could actually be slightly worse off after the round. Only a few such nations --
Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and Thailand -- would be big agricultural beneficiaries under the Carnegie forecast. Most
farmers in poor countries would suffer because they aren't globally competitive and they wouldn't be well positioned to take
advantage of new market opportunities in Europe and the United States. Moreover, many of the poorest nations now enjoy
preferential access to rich-country markets, a benefit that will be eliminated in a new trade deal. And, since a decline in U.S. and
other farm subsidies will lead to global price rises for many commodities, developing countries that are net food importers could
see their food bills rise.
5
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Agriculture Industry Link
Dr. Robert Goodman, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Farm Economist and Auburn University
Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, 2004 “A Five-Point Defense of Farm Subsidies”
http://www.alfafarmers.org/issues/farm_programs.phtml
Unpredictability, either in the form of natural or man-made disasters, remains the biggest challenge
associated with farming both from the standpoint of the producer and the consumer. Despite the bad
press they've garnered recently, Goodman believes subsidies serve two critical purposes --- protecting
farmers from drastic fluctuations in commodity prices often caused by weather or market setbacks and
consumers from the price spikes associated with steep drops in crop inventories. Throughout history, crop
failures were facts of life driven home with horrifying frequency until the 20th century when farm price
supports became common. "During famine, food became scarce and prices spiked," Goodman says.
"Now, thanks to subsidies, we are --- to some degree, at least, better protected by these higher food
reserves. Critics argue that subsidies create an excessive and even burdensome oversupply of inventory.
To a great extent, that's true, Goodman says. On the other hand, he argues, the huge year-to-year
carryover of large inventories safeguards against huge prices fluctuations that otherwise would follow
natural or market-driven setbacks. "Simply put, subsidies promote stability by protecting consumers
from high prices and farmers from low prices and, ultimately, bankruptcy," he says.
Dr. Robert Goodman, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Farm Economist and Auburn University
Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, 2004 “A Five-Point Defense of Farm Subsidies”
http://www.alfafarmers.org/issues/farm_programs.phtml
One of the major misconceptions associated with farm subsidies, particularly among consumers, is that
producers are the only ones who benefit --- not true, says Goodman. Subsidies virtually guarantee that products
such as corn, cotton and wheat are produced in large amounts --- a factor that not only benefits producers but
others along the food-processing and marketing chain. "It's not just the final products we eat that are affected
by these payments but the building blocks along the way that comprise the food production and distribution
chain," Goodman says. "Farmers receive direct benefits, but others along the way benefit indirectly through
cheaper production inputs, which, in turn, contribute to lower production costs."
6
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Agriculture Industry Link
Recently, one of my neighbors in town was complaining about our U.S. farm program. He made the statement that he
wished the government would subsidize his income, like it did for farmers. My response was that our farm program did
subsidize his income. How? By keeping food costs low. This frees up income that can be spent on other things. Most
people won't do the math. Farm subsidies amount to about 0.3% of the federal budget. That means if you're paying $5,000
per year in federal income taxes (payroll taxes don't count), the portion of your tax bill to provide food security for this
country would be about $15. The return on investment of that fifteen dollars is pretty good. You get a cheap, safe, and
affordable food supply. We keep a domestic agriculture sector (so we don't have to commit military troops in other
countries to ensure our food supply, like we do with oil). We provide an underpinning for our entire agriculture sector
which represents 20% of our GDP. We contribute to the balance of foreign trade. Agriculture exports are a significant
factor in lowering our trade deficit. This helps support the value of our currency, which increases our consumers' buying
power for imported goods and improves our standard of living. Since most payments are capitalized into the value of
land, we support rural, urban, and school taxing entities that rely on ad valorem taxes for funding. Figure out what school
districts and other taxing entities would lose if row crop farm land went out of production and back into pasture. To fill
that hole, the increase in your property taxes would probably cost more than three-tenths of 1% of your federal income
taxes. Food prices in the U.S. are very stable and have been declining gradually over time. When I was in college in the
mid 1980's, Americans spent about 17% of their disposable income on food. Today that number is around 9.5%. This is
even more impressive when you consider we buy more expensive ready-to-eat prodducts now than we did 20 years ago.
According to Farm Bureau, Americans work about 5 weeks to pay for their annual food expenses. In France it would take
more than 9 weeks, in Japan more than 13 weeks and in Mexico more than 17 weeks. I don't know about you, but an
additional four weeks of work to buy groceries is more than three-tenths of 1% of my federal income taxes.
Agricultural subsidies are critical to the survival of mid-sized farms, which are the backbone of the
agricultural sector.
Thomas L. Daniels is an Associate Professor of Regional and Community Planning at Kansas State University, where he
teaches rural and small town planning. He holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from Oregon State University and is
co-author ofRural Planning and Development in the United States, “A rationale for the support of the medium-sized
family farm”, Agriculture and Human Values, Volume 6, Number 4 / September, 1989,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47213302tj16214/
The current financial stress in the countryside and the future of the family farm are likely to be major issues in the
formulation of the 1990 Farm Bill. Medium-sized commercial family farms may be especially targeted for support. These
farms are the basis of rural economies and settlement patterns in many parts of nonmetropolitan America. Two possible
changes in farm policy are debt restructuring and the decoupling of farm payments from commodity production. Many
medium-sized family farms continue to face substantial debt problems, but most of these farms could be viable with some
debt restructuring. Ccmmodity programs have become extremely expensive and encourage overproduction and the
consolidation of farming resources into ever larger units. Federal farm programs may become based on need, with a
sensitivity to differences in regional farming systems. Such a policy could support medium-sized family farms, slow the
growth in superfarms, reduce surpluses, and reduce the overall cost of farm programs.
7
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Agriculture Industry Link
8
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Farmer Confidence Link
9
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
AT: Subsidies Lower Food Prices
10
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
AT: Subsidies Bad For Farmers
11
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
AT: Subsidies Lead To Overproduction
12
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Agriculture Key To The Economy
13
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Agriculture Key To The Economy
14
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Agriculture Key To Food Security
15
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Biofuels Key To The Economy
16
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Biofuels Key To The Economy
17
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Subsidies Bad – Trade
ELIMINATING AG SUBSIDIES IS KEY TO TRADE AND FOOD SECURITY
Raisbeck, 2003
David W. Raisbeck, Vice Chairman, Cargill, Incorporated, The Role of Agriculture in the Global
Economy, May 18, 2003, http://www.cargill.com/news/media/030518raisbeck.htm
This helps explain why agriculture is the linchpin of the Doha Round. Doha can shape for a generation the
progress we make in merging agriculture into the rest of the global economy. And that progress will
determine to a large extent how far we get in ending hunger and reducing poverty while protecting the
environment.
For many of the world’s people, agriculture remains a subsistence activity. Ninety percent of the food
produced in the world is consumed within the country producing it, and most of that usage lies outside of
the commercial system. A company like Cargill only begins to touch the food system as commercial
production emerges and agricultural products flow to urban centers and into international markets. But as
commercial food trade emerges, new opportunities arise to eliminate hunger and enhance food security.
The first opportunity is to lower food costs. Access to low-cost imports helps keep food costs down,
especially for the poor who often spend 70 percent or more of their personal income to eat.
Second, food trade creates choice. Trade offers variety; it also provides access to foods year round that
often can be grown locally only on a seasonal basis. And, it provides efficient local farmers new
marketing opportunities. The result is higher living standards for those able to participate.
Finally, food trade provides more reliable access to supplies at lower cost. Crops often fluctuate 25
percent from one year to the next within a growing region. Global production, however, typically
fluctuates less than three percent annually, as good crops in some places offset poor crops elsewhere.
Moreover, storing food typically costs 20 percent or more of its value annually, even ignoring waste,
pests, quality losses and the like. Most foods can be shipped halfway around the world for 10 percent of
their value, or half the cost of storage.
In other words, food trade lowers costs, widens choices and provides more reliable access to supplies.
Each is important in eliminating hunger. But, food trade cannot play this role effectively in the face of
large market access barriers. The major problem limiting agriculture’s role in the global economy is that
agricultural trade barriers on average are ten times higher than industrial trade barriers, and many
agricultural barriers are prohibitively restrictive. Unless these barriers are brought down dramatically on
all agricultural products in all countries, the global food system needed to end hunger will not develop
adequately. We will lose an important opportunity to reduce food insecurity, perhaps for a generation.
18
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Subsidies Bad – Developing Economies
19
Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Fellows
Econ DA /
Subsidies Bad – Environment
20