157 KO Germany and Japan DAs

File name
DDI 2008 Kernoff/Olney

Krishnan Ramanujan
Competitiveness DA
Competitiveness DA...............................................................................................................................................1
Germany 1NC Shell...............................................................................................................................................2
Germany 1NC Shell...............................................................................................................................................3
Germany Uniqueness.............................................................................................................................................4
Germany 2AC.........................................................................................................................................................5
Germany 2AC.........................................................................................................................................................6
Germany non-unique.............................................................................................................................................7
Econ Impacts..........................................................................................................................................................8
Econ Turns Soft Power..........................................................................................................................................9
Econ Turns Terrorism..........................................................................................................................................10
Links......................................................................................................................................................................11
Links......................................................................................................................................................................12
Links......................................................................................................................................................................13
Links – RPS..........................................................................................................................................................14
Links – Solar.........................................................................................................................................................15
Renewables Key...................................................................................................................................................16
Competitiveness Zero Sum..................................................................................................................................17
Link Turns............................................................................................................................................................18
Not Zero Sum.......................................................................................................................................................20
Japan 1NC............................................................................................................................................................21
Japan 1NC............................................................................................................................................................22
Japan 2AC............................................................................................................................................................23
Japan 2AC............................................................................................................................................................24
Japan Trade War Impact....................................................................................................................................25
Comp  Econ Collapse......................................................................................................................................26
US Competitiveness key to Heg..........................................................................................................................27
Heg turns Disad – Econ.......................................................................................................................................28
http://www.rawkins.com/games/do2/ 1
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Germany 1NC Shell

A. Germany’s quality products and reputation give it a competitive edge.
Phillipine Daily Inquirer 7-19-08, “German industry tools up to face global slowdown”
German manufacturers’ reputation for producing quality products gives them another edge over their rivals.
Expanding economies like China have sucked in the capital goods German firms engineer to expand their infrastructure
in recent years.
German exports to China rose by 19 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2008 and the Chinese market remains
robust.
China’s economy grew by 10.4 percent on the year in the first half of 2008, sources familiar with the data said on Tuesday.
Exports have helped drive Germany’s economic expansion in recent years and the “Made in Germany” brand has
enabled German manufacturers to cope with the strong euro by competing on quality rather than price alone.
“As for ‘Made in Germany,’ we’re the world’s leading exporter (of goods), so clearly it must stand for something,”
Wolfgang Franz, head of the ZEW economic research institute told Reuters. “But we face tough competition,” he added.
B. Plan creates innovation for alternative energy sources, competing in the market with
Europe and Japan.
Jason Walsh is national policy director for Green For All, and Sarah White is a senior policy associate with the Center on
Wisconsin Strategy. Both are contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus . Adapted from Sarah White and Jason Walsh, "Greener
Pathways: Jobs and Workforce Development in the Clean Energy Economy" (Center on Wisconsin Strategy, The Workforce Alliance
and Apollo Alliance, 2008)., http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE20Dj07.html
The United States is playing catch-up to others, especially the Europeans and the Japanese, who have invested heavily
in developing the expertise and manufacturing base for this production. But there are good reasons to believe we can
and should catch up. Transporting huge turbines overseas is unsound from a carbon perspective; with oil periodically
breaching $100 per barrel, it is financially irrational as well. Soaring shipping costs (and a foundering dollar) are already
driving greater domestic production. Some of the key wind turbine manufacturers serving the US market, such as Vestas
(Denmark), Siemens (Germany), Gamesa (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), and Suzlon (India), have already started to produce
turbines locally.
The siting by foreign companies of manufacturing facilities in the United States, and the potential of US manufacturers
to be the links in a supply chain for the wind industry, are signs of progress. They should not obscure the additional
promise that US-based green industries hold to be globally competitive sectors. With the right policy supports, US-based
renewable energy and energy efficiency industries can capture large shares of these rapidly expanding global markets
and export their products, from solar cells to energy efficiency appliances, to consumers around the world.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Germany 1NC Shell

C. Science policies like renewable energy are a crucial part of the German economy.
Annette Schavan, German Minister of Education and Research, “German World Champion in Export of Technology-Based Goods”,
6-27-2007, German Embassy - Washington DC, http://www.germany.info/relaunch/business/new/bus_Tech_Exports_06_07.html)
With its 6 billion euro program for research and development and its strategy for the development of the high-tech sector the
government has established favorable guidelines, a fact acknowledged by the think tanks in their report. For the first time there is
an integrated concept for the innovation policy.
The proposed interlinking between economy and science will be consistently pursued. Leading markets for exports and
leading-edge areas for research and technologies will be developed.
A change in paradigm has been produced in the science policy through the Pact for Research and Innovation and the Excellence
Initiative. These have allowed the federal government to improve sustainable conditions for leading-edge research and
academic output.
In this context, it seems likely that Germany will be investing 3 percent of its gross national product in research and
development by 2010. This was the goal set for the European Union by the Council of Europe in its Lisbon meeting. “With the joint
efforts of the German states (Länder) and the economy we can achieve this objective,” remarked Schavan
D. The German economy is key to the world economy – exports show.

GIST 2008 German-Israeli Year of Science and Technology(“Economy”,
http://www.gist2008.com/en/110.php?PHPSESSID=86ec3baf55bdc47f1381f78e027ffc66)
As the world's third-strongest economy, Germany plays a leading role internationally thanks to its overall economic
performance. Israel's economy is characterized by its global orientation and its high technology sector."Silicon Wadi" is considered to
be the world's most innovative location after the USA. For many years now, Germany and Israel have been important trade partners to
each other. Germany is the most important market in Europe, with the highest gross national product and the largest
population. When it comes to international trade in goods and services, Germany ranks second after the USA. Industry is the
most important sector of the German economy. It is very diversified and holds an internationally leading position in many
different fields. Germany is the world's third-largest automobile manufacturer, and the areas of machine construction and
plant engineering are also extremely important at an international level.
E. Economic decline causes a nuclear war

Walter Russell Mead, NPQ’S Board of advisors, New perspectives quarterly, summer 1992, page 30
Hundreds of millions - billions - of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their
leaders have embraced market principles -- and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for
them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period
of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - These countries with their billions
of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in
the 30s.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Germany Uniqueness
German competitiveness high – recent preparations have helped their
economy.
However, the Siemens example shows that German companies are taking steps to shape up. Widespread restructuring in
recent years prepared German manufacturers well for the global economic slowdown—a trend many are responding to
with fresh cost cuts.
“Germany will not be sheltered from this global trend,” said Citigroup economist Juergen Michels. “(But) German
manufacturers are better positioned than the rest of the euro area.” Faced with intense global competition, many trade
unions have accepted job security assurances over pay gains in recent years. Germany has seen virtually no real wage
growth in the last two years—a factor which helped industry gain an edge.
Michels said the past experience of trading with the strong deutschmark had also prepared firms for life with a strong
euro, which makes exporters’ goods more expensive outside the euro zone. The euro hit a record high above $1.60 on Tuesday.
Germany is the leader in research and development.

Annette Schavan, German Minister of Education and Research, “German World Champion in Export of Technology-Based Goods”,
6-27-2007, German Embassy - Washington DC, http://www.germany.info/relaunch/business/new/bus_Tech_Exports_06_07.html)
Ahead of the United States and Japan, Germany is the world’s leading exporter of research-intensive goods, with exports of
428.3 billion euros. Sixty-five percent of German businesses belong to the category of innovators.
The German economy’s high level of innovation is also shown in the number of applications for patents relevant to the
world market. With 288 patents registered per million job holders, Germany stands significantly above the average of
the OECD countries.
At the basis of the expansion of the research- and knowledge-intensive branches of the economy is the improvement in the
German international cost competitiveness, on the one hand. On the other hand, the good economic situation in
Germany is creating additional opportunities for businesses to invest more in research and development.
According to Schavan, conditions are favorable for this expansion: higher business profits, large gains in productivity, lower
labor-unit costs, reduced rates of inflation and, last but not least, the downward course of business taxes.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Germany 2AC
1. Economic power is not zero-sum
Deanne Julius, 2005 – Chairman of Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Harvard International
Review, “US Economic Power,” Winter 2005, vol.26, no.4, p.14-18)
What is Economic Power?

The very concept of economic power is more nebulous than that of military power. The ultimate test of military power-war-is the
classic zero-sum game. If Country A has a more powerful military than Country B, then Country A is likely to win in a war between
the two. And in the lead-up to war, Country B is more likely to back down. So having military superiority is clearly n good thing.
There is no parallel in economics because economic competition is not a zero-sum game. Country A may be richer than
Country B, but both will be better off through trade if the other grows richer. In the general case of a free-trade agreement
between a rich and a poor country (say, the United States and Mexico), the poor country gains more. Similarly, in joining a common
currency such as the euro, the poorer countries will benefit more than the richer ones. European experience since 1999 supports this:
Portugal and Greece have grown faster than their historical rates while Germany and France have grown more slowly. But on the
economic battlefield, the success of one country does not imply the defeat of another.
2. US will be the leader in renewables by 2009.

People and the Planet, March 4, 2008; “World wind power reaches 100,000 megawatts”;
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3219
Germany is still the frontrunner in total installed wind power capacity, with 22,200 mgws, but in 2007 it lagged behind the
United States, Spain, China, and India in terms of new capacity added. Growth in Germany is slowing because of a saturation of
suitable onshore sites and a decrease in the feed-in tariff for wind power. Countrywide, Germany generates more than 7 per cent
of its electricity from the wind. In the northern states of Saxony-Anhalt, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and Schleswig-Holstein,
wind meets an impressive 30 per cent of electricity needs. Spain proved to be the shocker in the European market in 2007, installing
3,520 megawatts — the highest number ever in Europe in a single year. Spain now ranks third in total installed wind capacity with
15,100 megawatts. And with wind energy supplying 10 per cent of the country’s electricity, Spain is second only to Denmark in terms
of percentage of electricity generated this way. France also demonstrated impressive gains in 2007, increasing its total installed wind
capacity by 57 per cent to 2,450 megawatts. The French government’s goal is to increase installed wind capacity to 25,000 megawatts
by 2020. For the third consecutive year, the United States led the world in new installations, with its 5,240 megawatts accounting
for one-quarter of global installations in 2007. Installations in the fourth quarter of 2007 alone exceeded the figure for all of 2006, and
the United States is on track to overtake Germany as the leader in installed wind power by the end of 2009.
3. Making renewable energies would make us buy more from Europe – helps
their economies.
Daniel Kammen, 2007 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley, also Director,
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global Warming Initiatives,” Congressional
Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf)
In addition to supporting domestic job creation, clean energy is an important and fastest growing international sector, and one
where overseas policy can be used to support poor developing regions – such as Africa (Jacobsen and Kammen, 2007) and Central
America – as well as regaining market share in solar, fuel cell and wind technologies, where European nations and Japan have
invested heavily and are reaping the benefits of month to year backlogs in clean energy orders. Some of those orders are for U.
S. installations, but many more could be if we choose to make clean and green energy a national priority for both domestic
installation and overseas export.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Germany 2AC
4.Conventional energies are best for Germany – renewables aren’t key.
Paul Runci; is a senior research scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute. His research focuses on trends in energy
R&D investment in industrialized countries, energy and environmental policy in the U.S. and Europe, and comparative international
politics.; January 2005 “Renewable Energy Policy in Germany: An Overview and Assessment”,
http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/energytrends/germany/]
Germany’s major conventional power producers, including RWE, E.On, and Vattenfall have also complained about the
EEG mandate to purchase renewable energy at fixed prices. For obvious reasons, conventional power producers object to
the government’s favorably discriminatory treatment of renewable energy producers who would otherwise not be capable
of competing in the marketplace. German power companies brought their complaint unsuccessfully to the European Court,
where they argued that Germany’s EEG provision violates EU legislation regarding government assistance to domestic
industries.45 Nonetheless, conventional utilities and energy marketers have learned to profit from EEG mandates. Since
wind and solar generators produce power mainly during daylight hours, power marketers usually buy renewable energy during
the day at stipulated fixed costs and sell it to consumers at even higher rates, especially during peak daytime periods. Cheaper,
conventionally-generated power is purchased in larger quantity at night, when demand and tariffs are significantly
lower. In 2003, a German energy industry association estimated annual profits from renewable electricity trading at
approximately 25 million Euros.46 Despite energy companies’ demonstrated ability to benefit from laws such as the EEG,
some energy analysts have pointed out that commercial wind and solar electricity makes little economic sense. Even
though continuous technological improvement in renewable energy technologies have reduced the costs of renewable
energy significantly over the past two decades, improvements in conventional power generation have likewise reduced
the costs of conventional electricity. Thus, renewable power providers pursue a moving performance target. In the absence of
government supports and policies, these energy sources are likely to remain less competitive with conventional power for
the foreseeable future and may even prove uncompetitive with renewable resources imported from other European
countries. Wind power in the United Kingdom, for example, is roughly half the cost of German-generated wind power; thus,
the integration of the European power grid could intensify the competitive pressures on Germany’s renewable energy
industries.47
5. US economy is key to the world economy – Germany collapse is irrelevant.

Walter Russell Mead is Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations 4/1/04 (Foreign Policy, Lexis)
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States--government and private
bonds, direct and portfolio private investments--more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the
strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the
prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into
depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under
those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States
because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a
source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining
its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S.
economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Germany non-unique
Germany is suffering now – lack of demand prevents growth.
But economic data has pointed to a sharp slowdown since then as export demand weakens and consumers old down their
spending.
German manufacturers’ reputation for producing quality goods and their ability to handle the euro’s strength better than their euro
zone peers puts them at an advantage but they cannot escape a drop in demand.
“Germany could be more resilient than other countries as long as the main shock was just the higher euro—but now that it is
also oil and subdued consumer spending it (Germany) is also affected,” said Bank of America economist Gilles Moec.
He pointed to weakness in France, Germany’s biggest trading partner, where consumer morale fell to a record low for a sixth
month running in June. Households across Europe are taking fright at rising prices, boost by the increased cost of oil.
Germany not competitive now – lack of technology and cheap labor.

Kirsten Labuske and Jochen Streb, German Economic Review 9(1): 65-86, 2008
Can Germany still be saved? Under this provoking heading Sinn (2003) discusses the reasons for the poor
economic performance of the contemporary German economy. One of his most important hypotheses is that,
in contrast to the situation in the German Empire, industry now lacks both technological creativity and cheap labour
(Sinn, 2003, pp. 19, 22, 26, 58). Sinn (2003, p. 67) concludes that contemporary Germany is apparently
transforming itself into a ‘bazaar economy’ exporting goods that were not really ‘made in Germany’ but mostly manufactured
in low-wage countries of Eastern Europe. During the globalisation period before World War I, on the contrary,
German firms seemed to be able to gain international market share by producing comparatively cheap and
high-quality products within the borders of their home country.1 In this paper we do not question Sinn’s
diagnosis with respect to contemporary Germany. Instead, we test whether it is true that the growing
international competitiveness of firms in the German Empire can be explained by technological creativity and the availability
of a comparatively cheap workforce.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Econ Impacts
Economic collapse leads to nuclear extinction
Thomas E. Bearden, Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel and director of the Association of Distinguished American
Scientists, CEO of CTEC Inc., Fellow Emeritus at the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study, 6/24/2000, "The
Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly", 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 {[7]} 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 {[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will
destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
Economic collapse leads to nuclear war

Chris H. Lewis, environmental historian and professor at University of Colorado-Boulder, 1998, “The Coming Age of
Scarcity”, edited by Michael Dobkowski and Isidor Wallimann, p. 56
Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to Withdraw from the global
economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, Japan, and others will fight
neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy. These neocolonial wars will result in
mass death, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political
repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths
of World War II pale in comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and
political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage the complex
economic and trading networks and squander material, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the global
economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global
civilization.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Econ Turns Soft Power

A strong economy is a prerequisite to soft power – means they can’t access
their impacts
Joseph Nye, dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, 3/1/06, “Think again: soft power”,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7059
No. In a recent article on options for dealing with Iran, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation refers to “soft power options such as
economic sanctions.” But there is nothing soft about sanctions if you are on the receiving end. They are clearly intended to coerce and
are thus a form of hard power. Economic strength can be converted into hard or soft power: You can coerce countries with
sanctions or woo them with wealth. As Walter Russell Mead has argued, “economic power is sticky power; it seduces as much as
it compels.” There’s no doubt that a successful economy is an important source of attraction. Sometimes in real-world situations,
it is difficult to distinguish what part of an economic relationship is comprised of hard and soft power. European leaders describe other
countries’ desire to accede to the European Union (EU) as a sign of Europe’s soft power. Turkey today is making changes in its human
rights policies and domestic law to adjust to EU standards. How much of this change is driven by the economic inducement of market
access, and how much by the attractiveness of Europe’s successful economic and political system? It’s clear that some Turks are
replying more to the hard power of inducement, whereas others are attracted to the European model of human rights and economic
freedom.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Econ Turns Terrorism

Economic depression results in increased terrorist recruitment and risk of
terrorism
Kevin J. Fandl, Presidential Management Fellow and International Trade Specialist with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, adjunct professor of law at the Washington College of Law, visiting professor of law at the Universidad de los
Andes in Bogotá, Colombia, 2004, “Terrorism, Development & Trade: Winning the War on Terror Without the War”, 19 Am.
U. Int'l L. Rev. 587 [lexis]
III. FIGHTING THE RIGHT WAR: ATTACKING POVERTY INSTEAD OF PEOPLE
A. The Poverty Approach
In his final speech in the United Kingdom as President of the United States, Bill Clinton stressed: "we have seen how abject
poverty accelerates conflict, how it creates recruits for terrorists and those who incite ethnic and religious hatred, [and] how
it fuels a violent rejection of the economic and social order on which our future depends." 50 His words carried more
significance than he could have known at that moment. 51
The terrorist networks that have come about in recent history are a significant threat to world security not only because
of the suicidal methods they employ, but also because of the status of the countries [*598] where these networks recruit
new members, engage in training exercises and where the leadership seeks refuge. These countries are not equipped
politically or economically to design proactive plans to uproot such organizations in their own countries, despite their
expressed efforts to do so. 52 They are developing countries with weak, or no, democratic political structure with which
to coordinate such efforts. They do not have the resources that European countries, for instance, have in place to take
preventative measures in order to sustain peace. 53
The George W. Bush Administration indicated that it "is aware of the link between desperate economic circumstances
and terrorism." 54 Yet, rather than working to develop sustainable economies capable of both directly (through increased
political pressure and rule of law programs) and indirectly (through increased employment opportunities and social stability)
eradicating terrorism, President Bush has chosen to dedicate significant resources to a military conquest against the elusive
concept of terrorism itself. 55 Many Americans and, to a much lesser extent, other Western citizens, support the view that
terrorism can be fought with tanks and [*599] bombs. 56 They obstinately believe that military technology is capable of
uncovering each potentially threatening terrorist cell and keeping the West safe. 57 This conventional method of warfare, while
effective in pinpointing targets in complete darkness, will be useless in eliminating the ideology that fuels terrorism. Terrorists
are non-conventional actors using non-conventional means through amorphous concepts that cannot be identified, contained, or
labeled. These are actors whose most potent weapon is the communication of ideas among masses of people awaiting an
opportunity for a better life. Many of us watch in excited anticipation for Osama bin Laden's capture and/or death. However,
we should rest assured that whether he is still alive will have no bearing on the control that his ideas, and the ideas of those like
him, have on the impoverished and desperate in the Middle East, South Asia, and perhaps beyond. No military technology will
be able to destroy the prevalence and furtherance of those ideas. 58
A Washington, D.C. lawyer recently made a connection between terrorism and the role that a government plays in fighting
poverty among its own people. He stated, "if governments ... fail to counteract [despondency resulting from poverty and
oppression] by meeting the basic needs of their people, then these areas will become "havens for terror.'" 59 Because of
its exceedingly high unemployment rate, evaporating gross domestic product growth, and lack of free markets and stable
financial institutions, the Middle East is a prime [*600] target for terrorist recruiters. 60 Countries of the Middle East, with
the help of Western states, must take action to promote market reform, develop political transparency, and create jobs in
multiple sectors of the regional economy.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Links
Creating a new-energy economy stimulates the US economy, creating jobs and
increasing competitiveness.
In the United States, green-collar jobs offer new opportunities for low-income and working class people who have been
at the short end of persistent and increasing inequality in this country. Despite significant boosts in worker productivity
over recent decades, median wages remain stagnant. The decline in manufacturing jobs over the past decade gathered
steam with an 18% national job loss after the 2001 recession, plummeting with particularly devastating consequences in
the industrial heartland, which bore up to a third of the national job loss recorded between 2000 and 2005.
Nationally, median family income has not recovered to the pre-recession levels of 2000, and job insecurity threatens
workers at all levels. This trend toward greater inequality, wage stagnation, job loss and insecurity stems from many factors,
not least economic and trade policies that have encouraged offshoring, real and threatened, and wage triage on a global scale.
The new-energy economy will not solve all of the problems of economic inequality, environmental degradation and energy
insecurity. But it can contribute mightily to a resurgence of the American middle class and a sustainable environmental
ethos. By expanding existing industries and creating new ones, the emerging green sector can retain and create
significant numbers of domestic jobs.
What are these green-collar jobs? We define the core of this sector as family-supporting, middle-skill jobs, most of them in the
primary sectors of a clean-energy economy - efficiency, renewables and alternative transportation and fuels. There are many
ways to count them, none perfect. One respected source, using a broad set of parameters, estimates that the renewable and
efficiency sectors may account for as many as one in four jobs by 2030. This projection includes both the full range of jobs
in these industries - from accountants to mechanics - and those created indirectly by them. Whatever the relative merits of such
approximations, even the most modest modeling indicates that the green economy holds much promise for urban and rural
revitalization.
Renewable energy policies are directly tied to the economy, creating jobs and
boosting investment.
Finally, all of these policy strategies will require forging solid links between economic and workforce development efforts, and
constructing clear and accessible pathways out of poverty for American workers. For example, Washington State's Climate
Action and Green Jobs Bill creates "green industry skill panels", broad public-private partnerships that are charged with
identifying good career-track green jobs and ensuring that channels exist to connect workers, particularly low-income or
dislocated workers, to those jobs.
The United States needs to think strategically about its emerging green economy and not just assume that clean energy programs
will generate jobs, or that they will be good jobs. A greener vision for the future can be a more inclusive vision as well, but only if we
consciously design it to be so. In the coming years, massive green investment and policy innovation need to be wedded to an
opportunity agenda that extends the greener pathways to all.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Links
Plan creates innovation for alternative energy sources, competing in the market with
Europe and Japan.
The United States is playing catch-up to others, especially the Europeans and the Japanese, who have invested heavily
in developing the expertise and manufacturing base for this production. But there are good reasons to believe we can
and should catch up. Transporting huge turbines overseas is unsound from a carbon perspective; with oil periodically
breaching $100 per barrel, it is financially irrational as well. Soaring shipping costs (and a foundering dollar) are already
driving greater domestic production. Some of the key wind turbine manufacturers serving the US market, such as Vestas
(Denmark), Siemens (Germany), Gamesa (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), and Suzlon (India), have already started to produce
turbines locally.
The siting by foreign companies of manufacturing facilities in the United States, and the potential of US manufacturers
to be the links in a supply chain for the wind industry, are signs of progress. They should not obscure the additional
promise that US-based green industries hold to be globally competitive sectors. With the right policy supports, US-based
renewable energy and energy efficiency industries can capture large shares of these rapidly expanding global markets
and export their products, from solar cells to energy efficiency appliances, to consumers around the world.
Germany’s lead is zero sum – it’s vulnerable to changes like the plan.
International Herald Tribune, 5/15 (“Debate over Solar energy in Germany Lowers Outlook”,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/15/business/solar.php?page=2)
The actual subsidy, Weber said, will be €40 billion to €60 billion, a third of what the German government is paying to prop up its
superannuated coal industry. "If we're willing to burden the population with €180 billion of support for a dying industry, who do we
worry about taking one-third of this to make Germany the world leader in photovoltaic technology?" said Weber, director of the
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in Freiburg. Defenders of solar energy see the hand of Germany's power companies
behind the effort to change the law. Reducing incentives for solar would favor wind, which is a more natural fit for the utilities,
because the cost of building wind farms is too high for the average homeowner with an empty roof and an urge to generate electricity.
"Solar energy is more decentralized, so the industry sees more competition from solar than from wind," said Carsten Körnig,
managing director of the German Solar Energy Association. In the former East Germany, where scores of state-subsidized industries
were shuttered after reunification in 1990, the solar industry is a welcome tonic for a depressed region. Signet Solar, an American
maker of photovoltaic modules that use thin-film technology, chose to build its first factory and research center near Dresden. "We
decided right from the beginning to have our main R&D in Germany," said Gunter Ziegenbalg, Signet's managing director. Still, there
are constant reminders of how quickly Germany could lose its status. Signet is building its next factory in Madras, India; Q-Cells is
building one in Malaysia. Other German companies are exploring the Mediterranean markets, particularly Spain. With more sunny
days a year, Spain is likely to have a competitive solar industry before Germany does. And now it has put in place its own German-
style incentives.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Links
Plan would raise US competitiveness and kill Germany’s competitiveness.
Reuters 6/6/08; “FEATURE-As energy costs soar, U.S. looks to solar”;
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN03423457]
After decades on the fringe, solar power is closing in on America's mainstream as surging fossil fuel prices and mounting
concern over climate change spur states, businesses and homeowners into a quickening embrace with alternative energy.
Panels bolted to roofs to convert sunlight into electricity are still too expensive in most regions to compete with cheaper, less
environmentally friendly fuels like coal without generous subsidies. Solar's high costs have kept the resource out of reach for many
residences and businesses,. But not for long, industry analysts and scientists say. The tipping point at which the world's cleanest,
most renewable resource is cost-competitive with other sources of energy on electricity grids could happen within two to five
years in some U.S. regions and countries if the price of fossil fuels continues to rise at its current pace, they add. "In the long run --
as in two to three years -- you should see competitiveness especially with the grid in a number of regions in the world," said
Vishal Shah, an analyst who tracks the industry at U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers Tom Werner, chief executive of SunPower
Corp, the largest North American solar company by sales, sees such "grid parity" for solar power in the United States and elsewhere
happening in about five years, or possibly as soon as 2010. "That's actually more aggressive than what we would say previously, and
that's because the cost of electricity is going up faster than we had ever modeled," Werner said an interview at the Reuters Global
Energy Summit on June 3.
"It is becoming more and more clear it is a real possibility, and we believe, a reality," he said. Richard Feldt, chief executive of U.S. solar panel
maker Evergreen Solar Inc, calls grid parity the industry's "Holy Grail" and sees it happening in about five years. "It's not far away," he said in an
interview Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd, one of the largest of a growing number of Chinese solar companies, sees the same five-year timeline,
thanks to increasing supplies of silicon that will help drive down costs. In the United States, much depends on November's U.S. presidential and
congressional elections. A Democratic win of the White House, and possibly greater Democratic control of Congress, could spur aggressive U.S.
measures to limit climate-warming emissions of carbon dioxide -- including legislation opposed by President George W. Bush that would cap
emissions from 86 percent of U.S. facilities.
If passed, such cap-and-trade provisions would make it costlier to emit carbon into the atmosphere and discourage the burning of fossil fuels. The
economics of solar and other cleaner energy sources would be more competitive. Democrat Barack Obama wants to require U.S. utilities to generate
25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar by 2025. Republican John McCain has campaigned on his support for alternative
energy sources but Democrats have questioned his voting record on those issues in Congress.
"Obama or McCain would be better than Bush," said Feldt. BOOM TO BUST? Although solar power is easily installed, building solar panels is
expensive because of tight supplies of silicon, their costliest element. Most industry analysts expect a constraint on silicon supplies to end within two
years. But they are divided on whether this would help or harm the industry.
Some say a drop in silicon prices would tip the scales from boom to bust by dramatically boosting supply of photovoltaic panels that make up 90
percent of sales in the industry.
Such panels use refined crystalline silicon. But rival technologies are emerging such as thin-film panels that require almost no silicon,
raising the possibility of a costly battle in the industry over which type of solar power will dominate. "The solar industry will look
very different just two years from now," said Ted Sullivan, a senior analyst at Lux Research, a New York market consultancy. He
said he expects "a shake-out among companies that aren't prepared to thrive in this new environment -- particularly crystalline silicon
players that haven't invested in new thin-film technologies." Those concerns have helped to cool red-hot solar panel stocks, a volatile
sector that also faces uncertainty over whether the U.S. Congress will renew tax incentives that expire at the end of the year. Shares in
California-based SunPower Corp are down nearly 60 percent this year, Colorado-based Ascent Solar Technologies Inc has shed 50
percent and Evergreen has lost about 40 percent of its value this year. That compares to a heady 2007 when industry leader SunPower
rose 253 percent from the start of last year to the end, Ascent surged 785 percent and Evergreen shot up 134 percent. Some analysts
urge investors to look beyond volatility in the near term to a promising future for solar in energy-thirsty nations such as the
United States, which could overtake Germany as the world's top solar market within four years, according to the European
Photovoltaic Industry Association, a lobby body. "While silicon oversupply in mid-2009 is likely to pressure companies' margins, we
believe investors at some point will become comfortable with solar's improving costs," said Ronan Wolfsdorf, a solar and renewable
energy analyst at consultants Macroenergy Monitor in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "The solar market needs to cross this great divide,
and a lot of that has to do with cost. But one thing to remember is that tougher regulations on emissions of carbon into the atmosphere
are going to translate into higher prices for electricity produced by conventional sources," he said. "That will make solar more
competitive in the long run."
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Links – RPS
RPS increases competitiveness and leadership – Germany and Japan prove.
Rusty Haynes, Policy Analyst, N.C. Solar Center, N.C. State University, “Systematic Support for Renewable Energy in the United
States and Beyond: A Selection of Policy Options and Recommendations,” 2004,
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/PolicyPublications/Haynes_KIER_Keynote.pdf, AG)
Government programs implemented by Germany and Japan during the 1990s have proven that committed, long-term (but
adaptable) federal policies can catapult a country’s industry into a world leadership position within a decade. Given the
tremendous success of these policies, federal governments in a position to support renewable energy should also seriously
consider adopting programs modeled on Germany’s and Japan’s. When designing a financial incentive or regulatory policy to
promote renewable energy, it is usually advisable for governments, when possible, to involve all stakeholders who will be affected.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Links – Solar
Investing in solar power creates competition and ends in US leadership.
Christian Science Monitor, 5-6-08, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0506/p03s05-usgn.html?page=2
"What's so exciting about solar energy is that it creates an elegant solution to three of the largest challenges that ... face our
country today," says Giffords. The first, she says, is US dependence on foreign energy. The second is global warming, and the
third is advances in technology.
Those advances in technology, she argues, could help America lead the world in this field.
"I'm very concerned that America is falling behind. Pursuing solar energy, cleaner-burning energy, renewable energy can
absolutely lead to economic prosperity," says Gifford.
Many in the solar energy field say the rising price of oil, and the possibility of a future tax on carbon emissions, is likely to
make the solar option more competitive – and soon.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Renewables Key
Germany losing its renewable energy leadership would mean devastation to
the world’s economy, energy security, economic efficiency, and environmental
sustainability.
OGJ ‘7 [Oil & Gas Journal; “IEA urges Germany to reconsider nuclear strategy”; General Interest – p. 35]
Germany's energy policy is of critical importance within Europe and worldwide as it is the third largest economy among IEA
members and is one of the largest energy markets in Europe.IEA urged Germany to reconsider the policy because the country
would be forced to rely on fossil fuels to plug its looming energy supply gap if it drops nuclear power as part of its energy mix.
Nuclear power provides 12% of German's energy and a quarter of its electricity generation. "Losing the nuclear option will
have significant impacts on energy security, economic efficiency, and environmental sustain-ability," IEA said. It would also
reduce supply diversity and increase reliance on energy imports, "particularly natural gas, which is not diversified enough."
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Competitiveness Zero Sum

Germany’s lead in alternate energy is zero-sum - proven by Germany’s capturing of the lead
from Denmark
Russ Christianson, ‘8 President of Rhythm Communications, a Co-Operation Development Firm, “Danish
Wind Co-Opts Can Show Us the Way”, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3d_rc7aJxIwJ:www.wind-
works.org/articles/Russ%2520Christianson%2520NOW%2520Article%25201.pdf+denmark+u.s.+%22wind+energy%22&hl=en&ct=
clnk&cd=6&gl=us)
As the Danish historian, Stig Hornshoj-Moller states, “the history of Denmark is above all a struggle lasting more than a
thousand years against being swallowed up by Germanic culture”. Like Canada and the United States, Denmark is a mouse to
Germany’s elephant. When it comes to renewable energy, Denmark was the world leader until the start of this new
millennium, and they have inadvertently passed the torch to their large neighbour to the south. Germany has swallowed
up Denmark’s renewable energy policy and improved on it. In 2001, Germany’s new red-green coalition government
(Social Democrats and Greens) legislated the phase out of the nation’s nineteen nuclear reactors. It also introduced legislation
similar to Denmark’s, including eco-taxes on fuel, energy conservation and efficiency measures, and renewable energy
incentives. The 2004 legislative amendment sets targets of at least 12.5% renewable energy by 2010 and at least 20%
renewable energy by 2020. There are now over 130,000 people employed in Germany’s renewable energy industry. In
Preben Maegaard’s words, “Germany’s renewable energy policy is a miracle!”
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Link Turns
A green economy produces jobs worldwide, helping all nations prosper.
And the extension of these greener pathways cannot be limited to US workers alone. Neither global warming nor capital
respects national borders. A serious effort to transition to a green economy, and to connect good green jobs to the people who
most need them, must cross borders, as well.
The United Nations Environment Program in collaboration with the International Labor Organization and the International Trade
Union Confederation has begun an initiative "to assess, analyze and promote the role of employment in climate change". Their
preliminary report, "Green Jobs: Towards Sustainable Work in a Low Carbon World", defines and analyzes green jobs in a range
of industry sectors in the global economy. It provides the first estimate of global employment in the renewable energy sector; in
countries where data is available the number of people employed in this sector is around 2.3 million, which is a conservative figure
given gaps in information.
By way of comparison, total employment in the oil and gas and oil refining sectors in 1999 was just over 2 million. Given the strong
and necessary growth of the renewable energy sector in the coming years, the report suggests that total employment for renewables
could exceed $20 million by 2030.
But as with domestic strategies, smart policy choices will be required to make such job growth possible globally and to ensure
that these jobs are accessible to those who need them. This will have to involve good development policy by advanced
economies as well as in the developing world and a clear focus on inclusive green economic development by multilateral
institutions like the World Bank. On both national and international fronts, the principle should be the same: we need to build
a green economy strong and equitable enough to lift people out of poverty and into prosperity.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Not Zero Sum
Competition is not zero sum – with minor adjustments, all countries can grow
simultaneously.
PSOJ 5-14-08, Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica, “Competitiveness is not a zero sum game,”
http://www.psoj.org/?q=news/competitiveness-not-a-zero-sum-game
This was the view of Dr. Densil Williams, lecturer in the Department of Management Studies at the University of the West
Indies.
The occasion was the monthly meeting of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica's Trade Policy Committee (TPC) on Wednesday
May 14. The goals of the Committee are:
*
To create awareness within the private sector of trade policy issues
*
To provide analytical and advisory services to members on trade policy issues
*
To submit well researched negotiating positions to government
*
To ensure private sector representation at major trade negotiating meetings
*
To forge alliances with other private sector interests in other trading blocs to strengthen the sector's negotiating position
Dr. Williams made the point that competitiveness was not a zero sum game and all countries could achieve prosperity by
developing competitive enterprises. But despite this fact, countries like Jamaica had not been able to fulfill expectations.
Dr. Williams was giving a presentation on the competitiveness problems with small, locally-owned firms at the TPC meeting.
The key factor was a lack of the required level of sophistication of business strategies and operations to achieve international
competitiveness.
Competitiveness was determined by the ability of firms to export goods and services at a rate of return which would expand
the invested capital, eventually leading to the export of capital in the form of foreign direct investments.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Not Zero Sum

Technology is not Zero Sum- all countries benefit when one does.
Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at MIT, Foreign Affairs, "Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession", March/April
1994, Proquest)
Moreover, countries do not compete with each other the way corporations do. Coke and Pepsi are almost purely rivals: only a
negligible fraction of Coca-Cola's sales go to Pepsi workers, only a negligible fraction of the goods Coca-Cola workers buy are Pepsi
products. So if Pepsi is successful, it tends to be at Coke's expense. But the major industrial countries, while they sell products that
compete with each other, are also each other's main export markets and each other's main suppliers of useful imports. If the European
economy does well, it need not be at U.S. expense; indeed, if anything a successful European economy is likely to help the U.S.
economy by providing it with larger markets and selling it goods of superior quality at lower prices. International trade, then,
is not a zero-sum game. When productivity rises in Japan, the main result is a rise in Japanese real wages; American or
European wages are in principle at least as likely to rise as to fall, and in practice seem to be virtually unaffected. It would be
possible to belabor the point, but the moral is clear: while competitive problems could arise in principle, as a practical, empirical
matter the major nations of the world are not to any significant degree in economic competition with each other.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Japan 1NC
A. Japan is thriving, increasing production while others are falling.
In Japan, core machinery orders rose by 10.4 percent in May, highlighting the competition German manufacturers face from
abroad, even if Japanese firms tend to boost their spending in the April-June period, the first quarter of Japan’s fiscal year.
German printing press maker Heidelberg said this month it would shift some production from Germany to the United States to
counter the loss of market share to Japanese competitors like Komori, which benefit from a weak yen.
Heidelberg also plans to cut jobs, while boosting output in China and Slovakia—the kind of restructuring efforts other German
manufacturers are also pursuing to cope with the global slowdown, and with which Chancellor Angela Merkel has sympathy.
B. American and Japanese competitiveness trade off.
Shoichi Itoh August 29, 2006 (Researcher, Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia, ERINA, Niigata, Japan) “Energy
Security Revisited: A Catalyst for Multilateral Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region and the Role of the U.S. - Japan Alliance” CGP
<http://www.cgp.org/index.php?option=article&task=default&articleid=337>
Firstly, with regard to the definition of energy security, the different aspects of its meanings should be articulated. A common
understanding of the term is maintaining necessary access to energy resources without risking the state’s survival now and in
the future. However, another aspect of energy security is reducing energy consumption by improving energy efficiency. The
latter variant is often less emphasized in political discourses, but has increasingly become a feasible alternative today due to
the advancement of high technology and the possibility of international technology transfers. Therefore, the geopolitical zero-
sum implications of energy security can be reduced, as long as energy conservation issues receive more serious public attention
and are more positively integrated into not only the domestic, but also the international agenda. Furthermore, energy
conservation should be considered not merely for economic benefit, but also more importantly for political reasons. According to
some estimates, due to different levels of energy efficiency, China requires about 9-10 times as much energy as Japan per unit of GDP,
while the United States needs about twice as much. It can be expected that effective diffusion of Japanese technologies in the
energy sector would greatly contribute to reducing the speed of rising energy demands on a global scale. In May 2006, Japan
announced that energy-saving and environmental cooperation in Asia would be one of the main pillars of its new National Energy
Strategy. In the meantime, the development and promotion of new energy resources and environmental protection has found a place on
the national agendas of not only the Unites States, but also China.
C. Fluctuating exchange rates as a result of economic changes kills the

Japanese economy.
Ronald I. McKinnon, Economics Department at Stanford University, Feb 16-17, 1999, http://www-
econ.stanford.edu/faculty/workp/swp99017.pdf
Second, the loose cannon in the pre-1997 East-Asian exchange rate regime was the yen/dollar exchange rate. For decades
before the 1997 crisis, cyclical variations in the real yen/dollar rate had upset the competitive positions of the dollarbloc
countries, and destabilized flows of direct investment from Japan to the others. For example, the yen came down from its
high of 80 to the dollar in April 1995 to 114 to the dollar in June 1997— a period when the East Asian Five=s bilateral real
exchange rates against the dollar, and against each other, had been quite stable. But, when the yen fell, their effective real
exchange rates appreciated before the currency attacks began in July 1997. This loss of competitiveness was
compounded by Japanese corporations reducing direct investment in, and outsourcing from, the East Asian Five. Thus,
before the crash, East Asian economic growth had already slowed.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Japan 1NC
D. Economic collapse leads to nuclear war
Chris H. Lewis, environmental historian and professor at University of Colorado-Boulder, 1998, “The Coming Age of
Scarcity”, edited by Michael Dobkowski and Isidor Wallimann, p. 56
Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to Withdraw from the global
economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, Japan, and others will fight
neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy. These neocolonial wars will result in
mass death, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political
repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths
of World War II pale in comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and
political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage the complex
economic and trading networks and squander material, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the global
economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global
civilization
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Japan 2AC
1. Economic power is not zero-sum
Deanne Julius, 2005 – Chairman of Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Harvard International
Review, “US Economic Power,” Winter 2005, vol.26, no.4, p.14-18)
What is Economic Power?

The very concept of economic power is more nebulous than that of military power. The ultimate test of military power-war-is the
classic zero-sum game. If Country A has a more powerful military than Country B, then Country A is likely to win in a war between
the two. And in the lead-up to war, Country B is more likely to back down. So having military superiority is clearly n good thing.
There is no parallel in economics because economic competition is not a zero-sum game. Country A may be richer than
Country B, but both will be better off through trade if the other grows richer. In the general case of a free-trade agreement
between a rich and a poor country (say, the United States and Mexico), the poor country gains more. Similarly, in joining a common
currency such as the euro, the poorer countries will benefit more than the richer ones. European experience since 1999 supports this:
Portugal and Greece have grown faster than their historical rates while Germany and France have grown more slowly. But on the
economic battlefield, the success of one country does not imply the defeat of another.
2. US competitiveness won’t increase – low due to trade deficit.

Robert A. Blecker, Professor of Economics, American University, 8-19-99, Trade Deficit
Review Commission
This discrepancy between our demand for imports and foreign demand for our exports implies that we will face a continuously
declining trend in our trade balance, unless one of two types of adjustment takes place. First, there could be a price adjustment, if
we make our goods relatively cheaper compared with foreign products. This would require that we continuously depreciate the
dollar in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, thus reducing our purchasing power over foreign goods and services, but making our
goods more price-competitive in order to offset the otherwise faster growth of our imports compared with our exports. Second, there
could be an
income adjustment, if we constrain our economy to grow more slowly than our trading partners’ economies. Slower growth at home
would reduce the rate at which our imports increase, and thus keep them from rising faster than our exports, even if relative
prices stay constant. The fact that the United States faces this unfavorable trade-off between depreciating its currency, slowing
its growth, and accepting rising trade deficits is a sign of declining competitiveness of the U.S. economy vis-à-vis its major
trading partners.
3. US economy is key to the world economy –Japanese collapse is irrelevant.

Walter Russell Mead is Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations 4/1/04 (Foreign Policy, Lexis)
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States--government and private
bonds, direct and portfolio private investments--more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the
strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the
prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into
depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under
those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States
because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a
source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining
its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S.
economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Japan 2AC
4. Turn – relations
A. Competitiveness key to US-Sino relations- creates new opportunities
Chuck Hagel, US Senator, 2-24-2000, Public Hearing of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission,
The most important market we can open today is China. The United States Congress should vote to grant Permanent Normal
Trade Relations to China. We should support China’s move to become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). China
supplies the U.S. with basic consumer goods like clothes, shoes and toys, but American businesses are unable to take advantage
of Chinese market opportunities for our competitive goods. In 1999 we had a $69 billion trade deficit in goods with China. As a
member of the WTO China will be bound by the rules of an international trading regime. Meaning Chinese trade barriers coming
down and American access to China’s 1.2 billion population market. This would continue to propel free, fair and open trade
between China, the U.S. and the rest of the world. Then we can begin to redress our trade imbalance with China. But if we
vote against Permanent Normal Trade
Relations, we will in effect be ceding China market opportunities to our European and Asian competitors, because they will be
able to take advantage of market access agreements and we will not.
B. Breakdown of US-Chinese relations will cause a black swan that starts the
next global war- economic interdependence doesn’t check
Niall Ferguson, Professor of history and business administration at Harvard, Citywire, July 3, 2007, p. Lexis
The breakdown of Chinese American relations over an issue such as Taiwan could be another cause of a black swan. It would
also mirror the circumstances setting off World War One when Germany and England sacrificed the height of free trade to
attack each other. Economics were irrelevant. The assassination of Serbian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914 was more important
for financial market liquidity than the 1929 stock market crash, Ferguson asserted. World financial markets closed for five months
after the murder from 1 August to 1 January, 1915 while they didn't close during the Great Depression.
C. War between the US and China would likely involve nuclear weapons and
result in hundreds of millions of deaths
The Internationalist, May 26, 2007, p. http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/united-states-vs-china-consequences-of-a-
nuclear-war
If we take more realistic standards, a nuclear war between China and USA would result in much higher casualties for both sides.
One would most likely obliterate the other or worse, both countries would be destroyed before a truce or victory call could be
reached. It is most likely US would suffer most because majority of its 300 million population lives in the major cities which
are in China’s missile targets (as a deterrance to US). China would suffer similar casualty in terms of numbers, however in
terms of percentage of population it would hurt less than US. In short neither country wants a war with the other, the casualties and
destruction being the strongest deterrents. The capability of China defend itself and strike back hard in case of an attack built a strong
incentive for USA to try a hand diplomatic solutions to problem rather than foreign policy based in economic and military warfare,
blackmails, threats and destabilising governments.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Japan Trade War Impact

The US surpassing Japan will lead to trade wars.
International Herald Tribune SEPTEMBER 23, 1994 “Competitiveness Is Not Pure Poetry”
<http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/09/23/think_2.php>
After examining a wide range of measures, including productivity, both conclude that the United States is in fine competitive
fettle. The Swiss-based study puts the United States in top place in its annual ranking, displacing Japan after eight years as No.
1. The Commerce Department finds that the United States is doing better than most other major industrial countries and is
now "back on track." The strong American position is partly due to economic recovery, which came earlier than in most of Europe
and Japan. But there is no doubt that U.S. competitiveness, in the sense most people mean, has enjoyed a resurgence since the 1980s,
when it first became a serious national concern. Three industries that were seen as symbols of declining American ability to
compete - autos, semiconductors and machine tools - have staged dramatic turnarounds. Commerce Department officials say
that those industries slimmed down and restructured precisely because they saw they were losing competitiveness against
foreign rivals. Thanks to its head start on restructuring, the United States is now well ahead of the curve, particularly in services
and high technology. All this should, in a rational world, have the opposite consequence to that feared by Mr. Krugman. If the United
States is the most competitive country, it should be the least protectionist. It should not risk trade wars with its trading
partners. It should not want managed trade or indulge in the kind of abrasive behavior associated with Trade Representative
Mickey Kantor on the international scene. It should immediately ratify the outcome of the Uruguay Round of trade talks to open
markets. Of course, that is what the government says it wants. It wants to pry markets open and it wants the Uruguay Round ratified
before the mid-term elections. Meanwhile, it is backing off from confrontation with Japan and Mr. Kantor's influence is mercifully
waning.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Comp  Econ Collapse

Loss of competitiveness crushes the economy – spillover effect.
Bernard Connolly, Chief Global Strategist, AIG| Dark Vision for the World Economy|,
2002http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Connolly.html
But as capital accumulation proceeds, the rate of return on capital gradually subsides back towards its starting point,
even if the process takes several years. As it does, business investment does not just decelerate -- it falls in absolute terms. A
similar story can be told about consumer investment -- residential construction and purchases of consumer durables. As
domestic demand falls back, net exports need to rise to fill the gap, a gap made bigger by the increase in capacity produced
by the preceding years of strong investment. But, by definition, the exchange rate cannot adjust to aid this process. Instead,
the lagged effects of past overheating, showing up in inflation, actually worsen international competitiveness. With
domestic demand falling and competitiveness worsening simultaneously, the economy goes into a tailspin.
Unemployment rises; inflation begins to fall back, even though for some time it remains above levels in competitor
countries. Since nominal interest rates are set outside the domestic economy, falling inflation pushes real interest rates up
while the rate of return on capital is coming down -- this combination produces falling asset prices, worsening the
decline in domestic demand. To re-balance the economy, domestic inflation has to fall below that in other countries
under the influence of recession and rising unemployment. But the process of disinflation (perhaps even deflation) constantly
pushes real interest rates up. Worse, asset deflation weakens balance sheets, including the government's. Bankruptcy
and default, including government default, become real possibilities. Credit spreads widen, exacerbating the problem of
excessively high real interest rates. Asset markets weaken further. The circle is vicious indeed. If nothing is done to break
into it, the outcome will be not just economic and financial collapse but social and political chaos.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
US Competitiveness key to Heg

Competitiveness is key to US leadership.
Zalmay Khalilzad 95, Defense Analyst at RAND , "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War" The
Washington Quarterly, RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY; Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg. 84)
To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its
success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions
produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and
negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will
shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and
adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S. economic
strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by strengthening
education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology.
Heg turns the disad – key to preventing wars from breaking out.
Zalmay Khalilzad 95, Defense Analyst at RAND , "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War" The
Washington Quarterly, RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY; Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg. 84
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First,
the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help
preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war
and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global
stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
File name
Krishnan Ramanujan
Heg turns Disad – Econ

Heg is key to sustaining the economy – trade, oil, and investments
Zalmay Khalilzad, Defense Analyst at RAND, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War" The
Washington Quarterly, RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY; Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg. 84, 1995
The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the
economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil
prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the
United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total
imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might be high
Heg prevents global economic collapse.

Paul Starobin, writer at national journal, 2006, “Beyond Hegemony.” National Journal. 12/1/06.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/1201nj1.htm.
ChaosIn his 2005 book "The Case for Goliath," Mandelbaum's core thesis is that America acts not as a kind of empire, bullying lesser
subjects purely for its own selfish ends, but as a world government for the society of nations, providing necessary "public goods."
The most important such good is security. Mandelbaum is not arguing that America is motivated by altruism -- he is saying that
America, in following its own global interests, is benefiting everyone. He offers this analogy: "The owner of a large, expensive,
lavishly furnished mansion surrounded by more-modest homes may pay to have security guards patrolling his street, and their
presence will serve to protect the neighboring houses as well, even though their owners contribute nothing to the costs of the guards.
That is what the United States does in the world of the 21st century." Mandelbaum does not dwell on what an American withdrawal
from this role would mean for the world, except to say, "The world would become a messier, more dangerous, and less prosperous
place," perhaps yielding "a repetition of the great global economic failure and the bloody international conflicts the world
experienced in the 1930s and 1940s." Whatever the "life span" of America's role as the world's government, he writes in the
book's last sentence, other countries "will miss it when it is gone.

157 KO Germany and Japan DAs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

157 KO Germany and Japan DAs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

File name

DDI 2008 Kernoff/Olney

Germany 1NC Shell

Germany 1NC Shell

D. The German economy is key to the world economy – exports show.

E. Economic decline causes a nuclear war

Germany is the leader in research and development.

What is Economic Power?

2. US will be the leader in renewables by 2009.

5. US economy is key to the world economy – Germany collapse is irrelevant.

Germany not competitive now – lack of technology and cheap labor.

Economic collapse leads to nuclear war

Econ Turns Soft Power

Econ Turns Terrorism

Competitiveness Zero Sum

Not Zero Sum

Not Zero Sum

B. American and Japanese competitiveness trade off.

C. Fluctuating exchange rates as a result of economic changes kills the

What is Economic Power?

2. US competitiveness won’t increase – low due to trade deficit.

3. US economy is key to the world economy –Japanese collapse is irrelevant.

Japan Trade War Impact

Comp  Econ Collapse

US Competitiveness key to Heg

Heg turns Disad – Econ

Heg prevents global economic collapse.

You might also like