Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 23 |Likes:
Published by soumya2311

More info:

Published by: soumya2311 on Feb 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) has had a positive impacton the United StatesContention One: The USA still has good control over the BRIC nations-Despite the rise of the BRIC countries, the USA is still the best economically. The United States iscurrently ranked as the most competitive economy in the world by the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. Wehaven't become less powerful in any way than the countries of BRIC. The US still has leverage over theBRIC nations.-Currently, all four of the BRICs have an economic bind with the US; this gives the US a financialleverage. In the case of China, the US has a vast monetary flow of goods from China; however theyneed us more than we need them. The US could find a cheaper source of imports because neitherIndia nor China has a monopoly on cheap labor. These countries are huge destinations for Americanproducts, says Mark Brawley Professor at McGill University, "As destinations for American exports,China ranked 4th, Brazil 13th, India 21st, and Russia 33rd." The fact that the countries of BRIC needus means that they would never do anything to jeopardize that. Nor have the countries ever doneanything to do that in the past, they haven't seen the rise in economy as a chance to take power.- -The countries of BRIC aren't seen as a threat to US economy. Infact, the countries of BRIC areopening a wide automakers market in developing countries that need more transportation. Currentlythe carmakers of US are having a tougher time than ever, and after years of allying with India, thiseconomic rise may come to us a benefit. The economist in 2008 Said "there is a huge unsatisfieddemand in the big emerging car markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Not to mention, the levelsof personal debt are far lower and smaller proportion of cars are bought on credit." The BRIC countriesare moving rapidly enough, even at a slowdown, that the countries would benefit the USA Contention Two: The countries of BRIC are commited to environmental issues Alana Herro of World watch says "Brazil, Russia, India, and China--all scored in the top 11 in a recentranking of countries' commitment to the environment". The results indicate that when it comes tofinding solutions to climate change, "rich countries should take the lead, but developing countries need
to follow pretty closely behind," said David Roodman of the Center for Global Development (CGD). Thisproves that the rise of these developing countries has a great impact on the environmental changes,which directly connect to Americans because of the incoming climate change, and we need everyoneto help with ending pollution. Brazil, Russia, and India all ranked in the top five because theyperformed well in measurements of greenhouse gas emissions per capita and consumption of ozone-depleting substances in 2007, this was the first time these countries were part of the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development to test if they were environmentally sound, mainly becausethey were finally developing at the time. Collectively, we are all contributing to climate change, and theend of this must be a group effort, the rise of BRIC and the third world countries in this has startedtheir efforts of the stop of climate change.
I would like first thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate, and I wish them luck in the roundsto come. I will begin by addressing my opponent's arguments, and I will then move into my ownarguments.My opponent first contested that "Despite the rise of the BRIC countries, the USA is still the besteconomically." I do not refute this, but it is nevertheless irrelevant. While the USA does still have thebest economy of all these nations, this fact does not serve as evidence that any of the BRIC countrieshave had a positive impact on the US or its economy. My opponent then went on to discuss thefinancial leverage that the US holds over these countries because of an economic bind. However, it isimportant to remember how much financial leverage these countries have over the United States. According to the US Department of the Treasury, as of November 2008, $3085.9 billion of the nationaldebt was held by foreign countries. This includes $681.9 billion to mainland China, $129.6 billion toBrazil, $78.1 billion to Russia, and $16.2 billion to India(http://www.treas.gov...). These holdings give these countries immense leverage over the US, and as their economies continue to grow, the amountof debt owed to them by the US also increases, as the US continues to increase its national debt. Thisgives these nations tremendous leverage over the United States, for if they were to pull out of this
relationship they have with the US, it would create a tremendous credit crisis, which would be severelydetrimental to the U.S. economy. My opponent has contended that these nations are the destinationsfor a large number of American exports. This may be true, but the fact still remains that the U.S. wasoperating in a $40.4 billion trade deficit, as of November 2008(http://www.census.gov...), which means that $40.4 billion greater worth of goods and services are imported than exported. Thus, whilethe U.S. may send a relatively large number of exports to these countries, the level of imports comingback from them is exponentially greater. This increases the trade deficit thus lowering GDP.My opponent next goes on to argue that "the countries of the BRIC aren't seen as a threat to the U.S.economy." This statement is completely subjective and its validity would depend on the source itcomes from. Certainly, domestic labor unions would not agree with this statement because growingforeign economies threaten U.S. jobs. My opponent next references the stuggling US automakers,claiming that a growing foreign demand for cars will help these companies to recover. This is not true.Despite a growing foreign demand for cars, it is the foreign automakers that are dominating the worldmarket, including the market here in the US. One of the main reasons for the struggling USautomakers is that they have been unable to keep pace with foreign competition. Thus, the foreignmarket is actually more of a threat, than a help, to the U.S. automakers. Also, this increasing foreigndemand for cars also creates an immensely increased foreign demand for oil. As foreign countriescontinue to industrialize, their demand for oil approaches the level demanded by the US. This will driveoil prices up, meaning gasoline will become increasingly expensive here in the US, while increasinglyscarce worldwide.My opponent's last argument claims that "The countries of the BRIC are committed to environmentalissues." My opponent makes reference to the "incoming climate change" and how "we need everyoneto help with ending pollution." While it may very well be true that these countries are environmentally-friendly, it is unavoidable that their pollution output will continually increase as they grow furtherindustrialized. Thus, while these countries may make efforts to minimize their pollution, this output of pollution will nevertheless increase as these countries grow; in other words, these efforts to reducepollution do not have an ultimately positive impact on the US, given that pollution levels will still

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->