The Instigator
megabyte2694
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
ac1125
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Resolved: that, on balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
ac1125
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,925 times Debate No: 6757
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

megabyte2694

Pro

PRO
Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States

Contention 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 is currently ranked as the most competitive economy in the world by the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. We haven't become less powerful in any way than the countries of BRIC. The US still has leverage over the BRIC nations.
-Currently, all four of the BRICs have an economic bind with the US; this gives the US a financial leverage. In the case of China, the US has a vast monetary flow of goods from China; however they need us more than we need them. The US could find a cheaper source of imports because neither India nor China has a monopoly on cheap labor. These countries are huge destinations for American products, 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 need us means that they would never do anything to jeopardize that. Nor have the countries ever done anything 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 are opening a wide automakers market in developing countries that need more transportation. Currently the carmakers of US are having a tougher time than ever, and after years of allying with India, this economic rise may come to us a benefit. The economist in 2008 Said "there is a huge unsatisfied demand in the big emerging car markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Not to mention, the levels of personal debt are far lower and smaller proportion of cars are bought on credit." The BRIC countries are 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 recent ranking of countries' commitment to the environment". The results indicate that when it comes to finding 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). This proves 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 everyone to help with ending pollution. Brazil, Russia, and India all ranked in the top five because they performed 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 for Economic Co-operation and Development to test if they were environmentally sound, mainly because they were finally developing at the time. Collectively, we are all contributing to climate change, and the end of this must be a group effort, the rise of BRIC and the third world countries in this has started their efforts of the stop of climate change.
ac1125

Con

I would like first thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate, and I wish them luck in the rounds to come. I will begin by addressing my opponent's arguments, and I will then move into my own arguments.

My opponent first contested that "Despite the rise of the BRIC countries, the USA is still the best economically." I do not refute this, but it is nevertheless irrelevant. While the USA does still have the best economy of all these nations, this fact does not serve as evidence that any of the BRIC countries have had a positive impact on the US or its economy. My opponent then went on to discuss the financial leverage that the US holds over these countries because of an economic bind. However, it is important 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 national debt was held by foreign countries. This includes $681.9 billion to mainland China, $129.6 billion to Brazil, $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 amount of debt owed to them by the US also increases, as the US continues to increase its national debt. This gives 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 severely detrimental to the U.S. economy. My opponent has contended that these nations are the destinations for a large number of American exports. This may be true, but the fact still remains that the U.S. was operating 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, while the U.S. may send a relatively large number of exports to these countries, the level of imports coming back 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 it comes from. Certainly, domestic labor unions would not agree with this statement because growing foreign 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 world market, including the market here in the US. One of the main reasons for the struggling US automakers is that they have been unable to keep pace with foreign competition. Thus, the foreign market is actually more of a threat, than a help, to the U.S. automakers. Also, this increasing foreign demand for cars also creates an immensely increased foreign demand for oil. As foreign countries continue to industrialize, their demand for oil approaches the level demanded by the US. This will drive oil prices up, meaning gasoline will become increasingly expensive here in the US, while increasingly scarce worldwide.

My opponent's last argument claims that "The countries of the BRIC are committed to environmental issues." My opponent makes reference to the "incoming climate change" and how "we need everyone to 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 further industrialized. 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 reduce pollution do not have an ultimately positive impact on the US, given that pollution levels will still increase.

Now, onto my arguments.

1) One of the major problems facing the average American citizen today is job loss. As companies look to cut costs, they continue to look to foreign labor. As these foreign economies continue to grow, the US loses more and more jobs to foreign competition as domestic companies move their factories overseas, looking for reduced costs.

2) Newly created domestic industries, as well as struggling domestic industries, have less of a chance of survival because foreign competition has such lower costs. This competition means we will see fewer and fewer new industries developing in the United States.

3) Dumping becomes a factor as these countries import their goods to the United States. As has been suspected recently with China, these countries are continually growing, but in turn often undervalue their currency. US industries are unable to compete with these imports, because they are able to be sold cheaper than it actually costs to produce the product overseas.

4) All of these factors combine to lower the overall GDP. As imports from these foreign countries increase, GDP is lowered. Also, as more and more US companies move overseas, there is less business investment in the US. This lowers GDP.

5) The US is unable to diversify its economy. As foreign economies expand and begin to dominate many of the markets for goods and servces, the US is unable to diversify what it produces. Right now, the majority of US exports come from agriculture and computer technologies. The market for agriculture is unreliable because changes in weather patterns and such can have dramatic repercussions on agricultural output. Computer technology is relatively expensive, with fairly elastic demand. This means that computer technology has a relatively low demand throughout the world. Because the market for most cheaper products is dominated by foreign competition, the US is left with these as its main output. This lacks diversity, which also does not benefit GDP.

I look forward to my opponent's response, and more challenges in the upcoming rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
megabyte2694

Pro

I'd like to start by defending my case then I will go on to refute my opponent's case, and I thank them for accepting this debate.
They started by saying my first contention "USA is still best economically" is irrelevant, however, I would like to start by saying it is more than relevant. The BRIC countries are rising economically and our GDP has actually increased over the years BRIC has been in service (2003-2009). And although they do import the US goods, it doesn't stop the fact that we have leverage over them as well. Not only do they need us for our exports to them, but do they need us for the money we send them, the rise of BRIC was never seen as a way to ruin in US government, if anything it was seen as a way for the world to become more unified economically. My opponent goes on to say that the countries of BRIC hold much of our debt, although that may be true, if it weren't for these countries the USA wouldn't be able to afford the Bail out plan, or the war in Iraq and Iran, the rise of BRIC gave them strong enough economies to give us loans. Although we may be in debt now, I can assure you the long term affect of the bail out plan will give the country many economic benefits. You must not forget that we were part of BRIC's economic rise, The USA funded much of the economies of the BRIC nations, through imports/exports and government relations. Although we do get many goods from these foreign countries, it still saves us millions of dollars because the products and goods in those foreign countries are much cheaper than they would be here. Even so, like I previously stated, India and China do not have a monopoly on cheap labor, we COULD get labor from other countries, but why stop while the BRIC countries are ahead?

These foreign jobs in the BRIC countries help many American businesses stay in business because of the economic growth going on in those countries. BRIC countries are reportedly in need of more transportation and our goods because of their economic rise. We, however, do not need more cars much less of anything we are exporting to BRIC nations. The rise of BRIC nations has helped our governmental economy because businesses are flourishing.

My opponent mentioned how the countries will pollute more because of their growth, but that fact is false. The only way for these countries to bring down their pollution output is to get alternate sources of fuel, like bio fuel or nuclear energy, however, these countries cannot get these sources of energy with out a good economy, Brazil and USA are currently working together on bio fuels in their country, not to mention India and china are opening several nuclear plants through out their countries. Pollution levels will decrease if BRIC nations and America can cooperate on how to switch our sources of energy to cleaner energy.

Now, onto refuting my opponents
c-1) My opponent states that "the US loses more and more jobs to foreign competition" this may have been true in the past, but the countries are working hard on their economies, the cost of foreign products will increase putting these businesses at not much of a choice but to pull out of these jobs overseas and give the jobs to American citizens, sometimes it takes a crisis like the recession to start a breakthrough. But do not get this confused with stopping selling cars and other products to these countries, for we do benefit from that.

c-2) My opponent stated that "domestic industries, have less of a chance of survival because foreign competition has such lower costs" but like I previously stated, the rise of these countries will most likely increase the workers' wage to keep up with the rise in economy, so in turn, these countries will not be a form of cheap labor and Americans can bring the jobs back to America because of the economic rise of BRIC. I do not see how the lower costs of work their has much to do with the economic RISE.

c-3) My opponent goes on to mention that the goods are cheaper over seas and US cannot compete with these imports, this may be true, but like previously stated, the rise of BRIC will do nothing but increase the prices of these goods, making this argument beside the point.

c-4) My opponent says GDP will be lowered, however did I not mention that the us GDP has infact increased over the rise of BRIC? My opponent may be saying it will decrease, but you must keep in mind the resolution is HAS HAD a positive impact, not will have, so this argument is irrelevant.

c-5) I fail to see the significance of the diversity of the US output of goods, what does this have to do with the resolution that the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the US? But also, these companies DO depend on our goods because we are the first to have them, computer technology sales are nothing short of increasing.

so again thanks for taking this challenge.
ac1125

Con

I would like to first address my opponent's numerous counter-arguments. They began by stating "The BRIC countries are rising economically and our GDP has actually increased over the years the BRIC has been in service (2003-2009)." I will reiterate - I do not refute any of this. However I still maintain that it is irrelevant. First, it is quite obvious that the BRIC countries are "rising economically," as this is the basis for this debate. Second, indeed GDP has risen over the years that the "BRIC has been in service," but this is irrelevant because GDP has in fact been rising since around the beginning of World War II (http://www.bea.gov...). It is a logical fallacy to contest that the BRIC has caused GDP to increase, as this does not demonstrate a plausible cause-effect relationship. My opponent has presented no sufficient evidence to prove that the rise of the BRIC has caused GDP growth. My opponent then goes on to once again claim that "not only do they need us for our exports to them, but do they need us for the money we send them," claiming that these countries holding our debt is a good thing for the US. I will once again reiterate: the US depends much more heavily on foreign exports, then these foreign countries depend on our exports. I have presented reputable data to support this. As for the argument about borrowing from these countries as a good thing, I will remind you that I merely presented this data to illustrate that these countries do, indeed, have a great deal of leverage over the United States. Whether or not this borrowing is good for the US is, in and of itself, debatable. Let's just assume for the sake of this debate, that this borrowing is positive. There is no evidence to suggest that the rise of the BRIC has had anything to do with this. The national debt has existed since the 1930's, and the US has been borrowing from foreign countries long before the BRIC had begun to rise(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Thus, the fact that the BRIC has risen does not suggest that there has been any impact on the USA's borrowing from these foreign countries.

My opponent has claimed that the USA was "part of the BRIC's rise." I again argue that this is irrelevant, because it does not prove that the rise of the BRIC has had a positive impact on the US. It is inevitable that the USA would be part of any country's economic rise. The USA is an economic leader in the world and provides an immense market in which to sell goods. It is fairly obvious that the USA would play a role in the rise of the BRIC economies, or of any economy, for that matter. This does not suggest that the rise of the BRIC has positively impacted the US, however.

My opponent went on to claim that these countries save US consumers "millions of dollars because the products and goods in these foreign countries are much cheaper than they would be here." They then go on to reiterate their point that China and India "do not have a monopoly on cheap labor." I will not refute that cheap imports benefit domestic consumers. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the rise of the BRIC has had any positive impact on this. In fact, Brazil, Russia, India, and China have been amongst the top fifteen sources of US imports long before the the time frame that my opponent presented in which this rise of the BRIC has occurred.

My opponent states that "BRIC countries are reportedly in need of more transportation and our goods because of their economic rise." First, no sources have yet been cited, I would question the origin of this, and all other reports that my opponent has mentioned. Second, irregardless of validity, this statement is vague and broad, not suggestive of any positive impact. Foreign countries have been in need of transportation and US exports for quite some time. How does this serve as evidence for a positive impact?

In claiming that "pollution levels will decrease if BRIC nations and America can cooperate on how to switch our sources of energy to cleaner energy," I must once again assert that my opponent has employed faulty logic. Pollution levels will decrease if any countries can cooperate to come up with cleaner sources of energy. But this is all hypothetical. Where has a positive impact ACTUALLY occured, and how can this be concretely linked to the rise of the BRIC? I will once again reiterate my previous argument that pollution levels in industrializing nations will undoubtedly increase, regardless of environmental protection efforts, because these countries will simply have more sources of pollution as they grow (i.e. more cars, factories, trash, etc.).

My opponent has attempted to refute my previous arguments, however there is not one instance in which they have provided a convincing counter-argument. I will address each counter argument that my opponent has given proceeding where he has written "Now, onto refuting my opponents." :

1) My opponent claims that as these countries grow, their labor costs will increase, which will mean US labor will ultimately not be threatened. This is not necessarily true. It all depends on the regulations these foreign governments implement regarding labor. In the US, we have numerous labor laws, which makes domestic labor more expensive and altogether less appealing for businesses. Hypothetically, even if these foreign labor costs do increase, how will this positively impact the US?

2) I will reiterate that the lower costs of work has EVERYTHING to do with the "economic RISE." The whole reason that these economies have risen is because businesses have been willing to invest in these lower costs. This means, if a US business puts a factory in a third-world developing country, that factory will not be subject to the same environmental restrictions, nor its workers protected by the same labor laws, as would be found in the US. This means an altogether more efficient means of production for this business, that is ultimately much cheaper. This is why US businesses invest in foreign economies. It is this business investment that has allowed these economies to grow.

3) My opponent has made virtually the same argument - that the rise in these economies will ultimately cause a rise in their labor costs - three times in a row. As I have already illustrated, the logic to this is faulty, though nevertheless irrelevant.

4) GDP has been increasing for over half a century. I will clarify that when I argued that GDP will be lowered, it was intended that the rate of GDP GROWTH will decrease. There is no evidence to support that the BRIC has positively impacted GDP.

5) It is difficult to understand how diversification of the US economy is unimportant. As of now the US specializes in high priced goods and agricultural products. While agricultural products have a high and inelastic demand worldwide, uncontrollable factors such as weather patterns and infertility can drastically alter the production of this. Meanwhile, high priced computer technology has a relatively low, and elastic demand worldwide. What if these two main exports become unreliable? Then the US is left to depend on its domestic service industries, and these are not exported. As more and more foreign economies grow, this phenomenon of specialization will become more prominent, especially in the US. With an economy that lacks diversity, a small number of factors could have tremendous adverse effects. I question the basis of facts where my opponent has argued "computer technology sales are nothing short of increasing."

There is no connection that links the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, or China's economies to a positive impact on the US. As it stands now, the US economy is far worse off than it was in 2003 (the year in which my opponent has stated this "rise" began). How does this indicate that the US has been positively affected by anything?
Debate Round No. 2
megabyte2694

Pro

You win, sorry I was just trying to see what people would say to what I said, you're really good but my debate is far from done, and I really need to write it up right now, sorry for not finishing
ac1125

Con

Thank you for this opportunity, and good luck in any future debates!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by majormerak 8 years ago
majormerak
One thing you both have to keep in mind, although I think megabyte is more guilty of this: you need to analyze the resolution. If you pick it apart you will see that the debate is to focused on what HAS ALREADY happened. Good luck.
Posted by AnimeFanTony 8 years ago
AnimeFanTony
Keep working on it Pro.
Good job Con and congratulations on your victory.
Posted by m93samman 8 years ago
m93samman
haha megabyte u should have just kept on going... u have over 48 hours but whatever it was a good round. i could tell from the first round that con was gonna win...

i'm building my own neg case, and ac1125's links were good. Good job both of u guys.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by majormerak 8 years ago
majormerak
megabyte2694ac1125Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mdal 8 years ago
Mdal
megabyte2694ac1125Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by ac1125 8 years ago
ac1125
megabyte2694ac1125Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RennAmethyst 8 years ago
RennAmethyst
megabyte2694ac1125Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
megabyte2694ac1125Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by megabyte2694 8 years ago
megabyte2694
megabyte2694ac1125Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07