WNDI 2008

1 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Competitiveness Adv Aff
Competitiveness Adv Aff............................................................................................................................................1

Competitiveness Adv Aff.................................................................................................................1
Yes Competitiveness – Immigration...........................................................................................................................2

Yes Competitiveness – Immigration................................................................................................2
Yes Competitiveness – Econ ......................................................................................................................................3

Yes Competitiveness – Econ ...........................................................................................................3
Yes Competitiveness – WEF Ranking........................................................................................................................4

Yes Competitiveness – WEF Ranking.............................................................................................4
Yes Competitiveness – Nano/Biotech.........................................................................................................................5

Yes Competitiveness – Nano/Biotech..............................................................................................5
Yes Competitiveness – R&D.......................................................................................................................................6

Yes Competitiveness – R&D...........................................................................................................6
AT: Manufacturing ....................................................................................................................................................7

AT: Manufacturing .........................................................................................................................7
AT: Engineers.............................................................................................................................................................8

AT: Engineers..................................................................................................................................8
AT: Health Care .........................................................................................................................................................9

AT: Health Care .............................................................................................................................9
AT: Mil Spending/Overstretch.................................................................................................................................10

AT: Mil Spending/Overstretch......................................................................................................10
Internals – Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................11

Internals – Manufacturing .............................................................................................................11
Impacts – General ....................................................................................................................................................12

Impacts – General .........................................................................................................................12
Impacts – Hard Power...............................................................................................................................................13

Impacts – Hard Power....................................................................................................................13
Impacts – Leadership................................................................................................................................................14

Impacts – Leadership.....................................................................................................................14
Impacts – Economy ..................................................................................................................................................15

Impacts – Economy .......................................................................................................................15

WNDI 2008

2 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Yes Competitiveness – Immigration
( ) Immigration ensures long term competitiveness Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, June 2008, “The Future of American Power,” Foreign
Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303-p0/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-americanpower.html But Europe has one crucial disadvantage. Or, to put it more accurately, the United States has one crucial advantage over Europe and most of the developed world. The United States is demographically vibrant. Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, estimates that the U.S. population will increase by 65 million by 2030, whereas Europe's population will remain "virtually stagnant." Europe, Eberstadt notes, "will by that time have more than twice as
many seniors older than 65 than children under 15, with drastic implications for future aging. (Fewer children now means fewer workers later.) In the United States, by contrast, children will continue to outnumber the elderly. The United Nations Population Division estimates that the ratio of working-age people to senior citizens in western Europe will drop from 3.8:1 today to just 2.4:1 in 2030. In the U.S., the figure will fall from 5.4:1 to 3.1:1." The only real way to avert this demographic decline is for Europe to take in more immigrants. Native Europeans actually stopped replacing themselves as early as 2007, and so even maintaining the current population will require modest immigration. Growth will require much more. But European societies do not seem able to take in and assimilate people from strange and unfamiliar cultures, especially from rural and backward regions in the world of Islam. The question of who is at fault here -- the immigrant or the society -- is irrelevant. The reality is that Europe is moving

toward taking in fewer immigrants at a time when its economic future rides on its ability to take in many more. The United States, on the other hand, is creating the first universal nation, made up of all colors, races, and creeds, living and working together in considerable harmony. Consider the current presidential
election, in which the contestants have included a black man, a woman, a Mormon, a Hispanic, and an Italian American. Surprisingly, many Asian countries (with India an exception) are in demographic situations similar to or even worse than

Europe's. The fertility rates in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman, and estimates indicate that the major East Asian nations will face a sizable reduction in their workingage populations over the next half century. The working-age population in Japan has already peaked; by 2010, Japan will have three million fewer workers than it did in 2005. The worker populations in China and South Korea are also likely to peak within the next decade. Goldman Sachs predicts that China's median age will rise from 33 in 2005 to 45 in 2050, a remarkable graying of the population. And Asian countries have as much trouble with immigrants as European countries do. Japan faces a large prospective worker shortage because it can neither take in enough immigrants nor allow its women to fully participate in the labor force. The effects of an aging population are considerable. First, there is the pension burden -- fewer workers supporting more gray-haired elders. Second, as the economist Benjamin Jones has shown, most innovative inventors -- and the overwhelming

majority of Nobel laureates -- do their most important work between the ages of 30 and 44. A smaller working-age population, in other words, means fewer technological, scientific, and managerial advances. Third, as workers age, they go from being net savers to being net spenders, with dire ramifications for national savings and investment rates. For advanced industrialized countries, bad demographics are a killer disease. The United States' potential advantages today are in large part a product of immigration. Without immigration, the United States'
GDP growth over the last quarter century would have been the same as Europe's. Native-born white Americans have the same low fertility rates as Europeans. Foreign students and immigrants account for 50 percent of the science

researchers in the country and in 2006 received 40 percent of the doctorates in science and engineering and 65 percent of the doctorates in computer science. By 2010, foreign students will get more than 50 percent of all the Ph.D.'s awarded in every subject in the United States. In the sciences, that figure will be closer to 75 percent. Half of all Silicon Valley start-ups have one founder who is an immigrant or a first-generation American. In short,
the United States' potential new burst of productivity, its edge in nanotechnology and biotechnology, its ability to invent the future -- all rest on its immigration policies. If the United States can keep the people it educates in the country, the innovation will happen there. If they go back home, the innovation will travel with them. Immigration also gives the United States a quality rare for a rich country -- dynamism. The country has found a way to keep itself constantly revitalized by streams of people who are eager to make a new life in a new world. Some Americans have always worried about such immigrants -- whether from Ireland or Italy, China or Mexico. But these immigrants have gone on to become the backbone of the American working class, and their children or grandchildren have entered the American mainstream. The United States has been able to tap this

energy, manage diversity, assimilate newcomers, and move ahead economically. Ultimately, this is what sets the country apart from the experience of Britain and all other past great economic powers that have grown fat and lazy and slipped behind as they faced the rise of leaner, hungrier nations.

WNDI 2008

3 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Yes Competitiveness – Econ
( ) Competitiveness strong – economy and technology Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, June 2008, “The Future of American Power,” Foreign
Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303-p0/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-americanpower.html U.S. military power is not the cause of its strength but the consequence. The fuel is the United States' economic and technological base, which remains extremely strong. The United States does face larger, deeper, and broader challenges than it has ever faced in its history, and it will undoubtedly lose some share of global GDP. But the process will look nothing like Britain's slide in the twentieth century, when the country lost the lead in innovation, energy, and entrepreneurship. The United States will remain a vital, vibrant economy, at the forefront of the next revolutions in science, technology, and industry. In trying to understand how the United States will fare in the new world, the first thing to do is simply look around: the future is already here. Over the last 20 years, globalization has been gaining breadth and depth. More countries are making goods, communications technology has been leveling the playing field, capital has been free to move across the world -- and the United States has benefited massively from these trends. Its economy has received hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and its companies have entered new countries and industries with great success. Despite two decades of a very expensive dollar, U.S. exports have held ground, and the World Economic Forum currently ranks the United States as the world's most competitive economy. ( ) GDP growth, the bottom line, has averaged just over three percent in the United States for 25 years, significantly higher than in Europe or Japan. Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, a full percentage point higher than the European average. This superior growth trajectory might be petering out, and perhaps U.S. growth will be more typical for an advanced industrialized country for the next few years. But the general point -- that the United States is a highly dynamic economy at the cutting edge, despite its enormous size -- holds.

WNDI 2008

4 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Yes Competitiveness – WEF Ranking
( ) U.S. has the most competitive economy AP (Associated Press), 10-31-2007, “U.S. regains status as the world’s most competitive economy,” IHT,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/31/business/compete.php The United States has regained its status as the world's most competitive economy thanks to strong innovation and excellent universities, according to a survey released Wednesday by the World Economic Forum. The United States rebounded from sixth place last year to knock Switzerland from the top spot in the "global competitiveness index." The Swiss were second this year, followed by Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Finland. The study by the World Economic Forum said the United States was helped by close cooperation between universities and business on research and development, its high intellectual property protection, and its efficient use of employees and investment.

WNDI 2008

5 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Yes Competitiveness – Nano/Biotech
( ) Competitiveness sustainable – U.S. leads in key future industries Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, June 2008, “The Future of American Power,” Foreign
Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303-p0/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-americanpower.html Consider the industries of the future. Nanotechnology (applied science dealing with the control of matter at the atomic or molecular scale) is likely to lead to fundamental breakthroughs over the next 50 years, and the United States dominates the field. It has more dedicated "nanocenters" than the next three nations (Germany, Britain, and China) combined and has issued more patents for nanotechnology than the rest of the world combined, highlighting its unusual strength in turning abstract theory into practical products. Biotechnology (a broad category that describes the use of biological systems to create medical, agricultural, and industrial products) is also dominated by the United States. Biotech revenues in the United States approached $50 billion in 2005, five times as large as the amount in Europe and representing 76 percent of global biotech revenues.

WNDI 2008

6 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Yes Competitiveness – R&D
( ) Yes competitiveness – R&D research Adam Segal, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, November/December 2004, “Is
America Losing Its Edge?,” Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adamsegal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=print At the moment, it would be premature to declare a crisis in the United States' scientific or technological competitiveness. The United States is still the envy of the world for reasons ranging from its ability to fund basic scientific research to the speed with which its companies commercialize new breakthroughs. This year, total U.S. expenditures on R&D are expected to top $290 billion-more than twice the total for Japan, the next biggest spender. In 2002, the U.S. R&D total exceeded that of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom combined (although the United States trailed Finland, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and Sweden in the ratio of R&D to GDP). And although scholars from other parts of the world may write relatively more science and engineering papers than Americans do, U.S. research continues to be cited the most. The United States also leads the major global technology markets, holding commanding market shares in aerospace, scientific instruments, computers and office machinery, and communications instruments. U.S. information and communications technology producers lead almost every sector. And for the last two decades, U.S. firms have been the top providers of high-technology services, accounting for about one-third of the world's total.

WNDI 2008

7 Competitiveness Adv Aff

AT: Manufacturing
( ) Outsourcing doesn’t undermine competitiveness Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, June 2008, “The Future of American Power,” Foreign
Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303-p0/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-americanpower.html Manufacturing has, of course, been leaving the country, shifting to the developing world and turning the United States into a service economy. This scares many Americans, who wonder what their country will make if everything is "made in China." But Asian manufacturing must be viewed in the context of a global economy. The Atlantic Monthly's James Fallows spent a year in China watching its manufacturing juggernaut up close, and he provides a persuasive explanation of how outsourcing has strengthened U.S. competitiveness. What it comes down to is that the real money is in designing and distributing products -- which the United States dominates -- rather than manufacturing them. A vivid example of this is the iPod: it is manufactured mostly outside the United States, but most of the added value is captured by Apple, in California.

WNDI 2008

8 Competitiveness Adv Aff

AT: Engineers
( ) Engineer shortages aren’t tanking competitiveness India Post, 3-18-2007, “China racing ahead of US/India in research ability,” http://indiapost.com/article/india/6/
Wadhwa said, "We reported that the US actually graduates a comparable number of such engineers, and reported serious problems with the quality of Indian and Chinese graduates. We predicted shortages in India and unemployment in China. It seems we were right."

( ) No engineer shortage India Post, 3-18-2007, “China racing ahead of US/India in research ability,” http://indiapost.com/article/india/6/
5. It is not the education of Indian and Chinese workers that is causing outsourcing or a deficiency in the American workforce – it’s all about cost savings. There is no shortage of engineers in the U.S.

WNDI 2008

9 Competitiveness Adv Aff

AT: Health Care
( ) Health care costs don’t substantially undermine competitiveness Lee Hudson Teslik, Associate Editor @ Council on Foreign Relations, 3-18-2008, “Helath Care Costs and U.S.
Competitiveness,” Council on Foreign Relations Publishing It is difficult to quantify the precise effect high healthcare costs have had so far on the U.S. job market. Healthcare is one of several factors—entrenched union contracts are another—that make doing business in the United States expensive and it’s difficult to parse the effects of each factor. Moreover, economists disagree on the number of U.S. jobs that have been lost to offshoring—the transfer of business operations across national boundaries to friendlier operating environments. The Princeton economist Alan S. Blinder, in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article, says that judging by data compiled from “fragmentary studies,” it is apparent that “under a million service-sector jobs in the United States have been lost to offshoring to date.” Blinder goes on to predict that somewhere between 28 million and 42 million U.S. jobs are “susceptible” to offshoring in a future where technology allows the more efficient transfer of jobs. Many other economists, however, have shied away from making such estimates, and some have criticized Blinder’s approach.

WNDI 2008

10 Competitiveness Adv Aff

AT: Mil Spending/Overstretch
( ) Overstretch won’t tank competitiveness – only a small part of GDP Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, June 2008, “The Future of American Power,” Foreign
Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303-p0/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-americanpower.html This difference between the United States and Britain is reflected in the burden of their military budgets. Britannia ruled the seas but never the land. The British army was sufficiently small that Otto von Bismarck once quipped that were the British ever to invade Germany, he would simply have the local police force arrest them. Meanwhile, London's advantage over the seas -- it had more tonnage than the next two navies put together -- came at ruinous cost. The U.S. military, in contrast, dominates at every level -- land, sea, air, space -- and spends more than the next 14 countries combined, accounting for almost 50 percent of global defense spending. The United States also spends more on defense research and development than the rest of the world put together. And crucially, it does all this without breaking the bank. U.S. defense expenditure as a percent of GDP is now 4.1 percent, lower than it was for most of the Cold War (under Dwight Eisenhower, it rose to ten percent). As U.S. GDP has grown larger and larger, expenditures that would have been backbreaking have become affordable. The Iraq war may be a tragedy or a noble endeavor, but either way, it will not bankrupt the United States. The price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan together -- $125 billion a year -- represents less than one percent of GDP. The war in Vietnam, by comparison, cost the equivalent of 1.6 percent of U.S. GDP in 1970, a large difference. (Neither of these percentages includes second- or third-order costs of war, which allows for a fair comparison even if one disputes the exact figures.)

WNDI 2008

11 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Internals – Manufacturing
( ) Manufacturing key to competitiveness William Bonvillian, Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Lieberman, Fall 2004, “Meeting the New
challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness,” Issues in Science and Technology, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200410/ai_n9457056/pg_9 Manufacturing and services. Dazzling prototypes are not sources of profit. Reliable and cost-competitive products must be manufactured to reap the final reward of innovation. In the 1990s manufacturing comprised 16 percent of the U.S. economy but contributed 30 percent of U.S. economic growth. Manufacturing jobs on average pay 23 percent more than service sector jobs, but the United States lost some 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in the recent recession, and few of these have returned. In addition to providing a good salary, the average manufacturing job creates 4.2 jobs throughout the economy, which is three times the rate for jobs in business and personal services. As a result of the improved productivity of manufacturing workers, the sector's share of employment has fallen far faster than its share of GDP. Although manufacturing has continued to increase productivity since 2000, this hasn't translated into the economic gains we need. This is significant because manufacturing is a big multiplier. The Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that some economic sectors have a "multiplier effect" where growth in one sector influences others; there is a 2.43 multiplier for manufacturing, compared to a 1.5 multiplier for business services. Manufacturing remains the currency of the global economy. Selling high-value goods in international trade is still the way nations and regions become rich. However, the U.S. trade deficit in goods is exploding: It reached $482 billion in 2003 ($120 billion with China alone) and continues to grow-without causing significant public alarm. For perspective, remember that the nation agonized over a $22 billion deficit in 1981 and a $67 billion deficit in 1991. The argument that only the low end of manufacturing is leaving simply is not true; key parts of high-end advanced manufacturing are moving abroad. Manufacturing is also a dynamic factor in the innovation process. Historically, manufacturing and the design and development stages of innovation have been closely interrelated and kept geographically close to each other. This is particularly true for newer advanced technologies such as semiconductors. When manufacturing departs, design and R&D often follow. In recent years, firms have been developing a combined production and services model, carefully integrating the two to provide unique products and services, and thus enhancing the importance of manufacturing. The talent erosion in the manufacturing base is a particular concern. Economist Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School has argued that if highproductivity jobs are lost to foreign rivals, long-term economic prosperity is compromised. John Zysman of the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy believes that manufacturing is critical even in the information age, because advanced mechanisms for production and the accompanying jobs are a strategic asset whose location can make a nation an attractive place to create strategic advantage. Without a strong manufacturing base, it is difficult to realize economic gain from technological innovation. Because technology innovation and manufacturing process innovation are closely linked, the erosion of the manufacturing base will affect the innovation system. To avoid the "hollowing out" of manufacturing, action will be needed on a range of policies from trade promotion and enforcement, to tax policies to encourage new investment, to programs for improving worker skills, to DOD efforts to ensure strategic manufacturing capability. Innovation in the manufacturing process, however, might be the most important:

WNDI 2008

12 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Impacts – General
( ) Competitiveness is key to the economy and hegemony Adam Segal, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, November/December 2004, “Is
America Losing Its Edge?,” Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adamsegal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=print Summary: For 50 years, the United States has maintained its economic edge by being better and faster than any other country at inventing and exploiting new technologies. Today, however, its dominance is starting to slip, as Asian countries pour resources into R&D and challenge America's traditional role in the global economy. Adam Segal is Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China. The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead.

WNDI 2008

13 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Impacts – Hard Power
( ) Innovation is key to military superiority Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Practical Engagement: Drawing a Fine Line for U.S.-China Trade,” The Washington Quarterly 2004 Summer
The brevity of the list of technologies the United States should try and control is the product of two processes that have occurred over the last 10 years: the increasing importance of commercial producers in R&D and the globalization of technological innovation. Unlike during the Cold War, government spending and procurement no longer play a dominant role in commercial R&D, especially in IT sectors. In the 1970s, the
major semiconductor manufacturers were essentially government defense contractors; the Pentagon was the source of almost 50 percent of the funding for semiconductor R&D from the 1950s to the 1970s. n29 In 2002, according to David Rose, director of export, import, and information security affairs at Intel Corporation, all government procurement (including Defense Department contracts) accounted for less than 1 percent of U.S. semiconductor sales, and that number is declining. n30 With the diminishing importance of

government funding, private firms play a greater role in maintaining the United States' national security. Military capabilities are closely tied to the innovative capabilities of commercial producers. According to a 1999 Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security, the Defense Department relies "increasingly on the U.S. commercial advanced technology sector to push the technological envelope and enable the [department] to 'run faster' than its competitors." n31

Continued innovation and technological dominance is key to military superiority Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly 1995
U.S. superiority in new weapons and their use would be critical. U.S. planners should therefore give higher priority to research on new technologies, new concepts of operation, and changes in organization, with the aim of U.S. dominance in the military technical revolution that may be emerging. They should also focus on how to project U.S. systems and interests against weapons based on new technologies. The Persian Gulf War gave a glimpse of the likely future. The character of warfare will change because of advances in military technology, where the United States has the lead, and in corresponding concepts of operation and organizational structure. The challenge is to sustain this lead in the face of the complacency that the current U.S. lead in military power is likely to engender. Those who are seeking to be rivals to the United States are likely to be very motivated to explore new technologies and how to use them against it. A determined nation making the right choices, even though it possessed a much smaller economy, could pose an enormous challenge by exploiting breakthroughs that made more traditional U.S. military methods less effective by comparison. For example, Germany, by making the right technical choices and adopting innovative concepts for their use in the 1920s and 1930s, was able to make a serious bid for world domination. At the same time, Japan, with a relatively small GNP compared to the other major powers, especially the United States, was at the forefront of the development of naval aviation and aircraft carriers. These examples indicate that a major innovation in warfare provides ambitious powers an opportunity to become dominant or near-dominant powers. U.S. domination of the emerging military-technical revolution, combined with the maintenance of a force of adequate size, can help to discourage the rise of a rival power by making potential rivals believe that catching up with the United States is a hopeless proposition and that if they try they will suffer the same fate as the former Soviet Union.

WNDI 2008

14 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Impacts – Leadership
( ) Competitiveness key to leadership Rocco Leonard Martino, founder and chairman of the board of Cyber Technology Group, Spring 2007, “A
Strategy for Success: Innovation Will Renew American Leadership,” Science Direct, accessed: Orbis While the foreign policy discussion in the United States today is focused upon the Iraq War and Islamist terrorism, America also faces other, more long-term challenges to its physical security and economic prosperity: the threats posed by our declining economic competitiveness and our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. As in the past, America's ability to prevail over these challenges will depend on its technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. The United States needs a national strategy focused upon developing new technologies and creating new industries.

( ) Competitiveness key to hegemony Rocco Leonard Martino, founder and chairman of the board of Cyber Technology Group, Spring 2007, “A
Strategy for Success: Innovation Will Renew American Leadership,” Science Direct, accessed: Orbis The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to America's ability to prevail over these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on creating and recreating new technologies and new industries, generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological leadership might even be said to be the American way of maintaining primacy in world affairs. They are almost certainly what America will have to pursue in order to prevail over the contemporary challenges involving economic competitiveness and energy dependence.

( ) Competitiveness key to leadership Bruce Mehlman, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, 10-23-2003, “Technology Administration 21st
Century Policy Challenges for American Innovation Leadership,” http://www.technology.gov/Speeches/BPM_031023.htm Driven by convergence, globalization and radically disruptive new technologies such as nanotechnology, changes in the 21st century will come faster, disruptions to legacy business models and products will cut deeper, and the nations, firms, and individuals who succeed will be those best able to adapt. Coping with this accelerating rate of change and complexity may prove to be the most significant dynamic impacting American success and leadership in the 21st century. While the United States is betterpositioned for such a world right now than most other nations, competitors are rapidly gaining and pressing their own comparative advantages. The future will be global, hyper-competitive, technologically intensive, and rapidly changing… and we must be prepared.

WNDI 2008

15 Competitiveness Adv Aff

Impacts – Economy
( ) Competitiveness key to the ecoomy William Bonvillian, Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Lieberman, Fall 2004, “Meeting the New
challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness,” Issues in Science and Technology, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200410/ai_n9457056/pg_9 The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a highly talented workforce, powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of entrepreneurs and many dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing economy, but it gives the country the wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are visible everywhere. Strong economic growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to fashion a new competitiveness agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of the new century. Once that agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful