Adv Competitiveness Aff 15

WNDI 2008 1
Competitiveness Adv Aff

Competitiveness Adv Aff............................................................................................................................................1
Competitiveness Adv Aff.................................................................................................................1
Yes Competitiveness – Immigration...........................................................................................................................2
Yes Competitiveness – Immigration................................................................................................2
Yes Competitiveness – Econ ......................................................................................................................................3
Yes Competitiveness – Econ ...........................................................................................................3
Yes Competitiveness – WEF Ranking........................................................................................................................4
Yes Competitiveness – WEF Ranking.............................................................................................4
Yes Competitiveness – Nano/Biotech.........................................................................................................................5
Yes Competitiveness – Nano/Biotech..............................................................................................5
Yes Competitiveness – R&D.......................................................................................................................................6
Yes Competitiveness – R&D...........................................................................................................6
AT: Manufacturing ....................................................................................................................................................7
AT: Manufacturing .........................................................................................................................7
AT: Engineers.............................................................................................................................................................8
AT: Engineers..................................................................................................................................8
AT: Health Care .........................................................................................................................................................9
AT: Health Care .............................................................................................................................9
AT: Mil Spending/Overstretch.................................................................................................................................10
AT: Mil Spending/Overstretch......................................................................................................10
Internals – Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................11
Internals – Manufacturing .............................................................................................................11
Impacts – General ....................................................................................................................................................12
Impacts – General .........................................................................................................................12
Impacts – Hard Power...............................................................................................................................................13
Impacts – Hard Power....................................................................................................................13
Impacts – Leadership................................................................................................................................................14
Impacts – Leadership.....................................................................................................................14
Impacts – Economy ..................................................................................................................................................15
Impacts – Economy .......................................................................................................................15
WNDI 2008 2
Yes Competitiveness – Immigration

( ) Immigration ensures long term competitiveness
Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, June 2008, “The Future of American Power,” Foreign
Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303-p0/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-
power.html
But Europe has one crucial disadvantage. Or, to put it more accurately, the United States has one crucial advantage over
Europe and most of the developed world. The United States is demographically vibrant. Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute, estimates that the U.S. population will increase by 65 million by 2030, whereas
Europe's population will remain "virtually stagnant." Europe, Eberstadt notes, "will by that time have more than twice as
many seniors older than 65 than children under 15, with drastic implications for future aging. (Fewer children now means fewer workers
later.) In the United States, by contrast, children will continue to outnumber the elderly. The United Nations Population Division
estimates that the ratio of working-age people to senior citizens in western Europe will drop from 3.8:1 today to just 2.4:1 in 2030. In the
U.S., the figure will fall from 5.4:1 to 3.1:1." The only real way to avert this demographic decline is for Europe to take in more
immigrants. Native Europeans actually stopped replacing themselves as early as 2007, and so even maintaining the current population
will require modest immigration. Growth will require much more. But European societies do not seem able to take in
and assimilate people from strange and unfamiliar cultures, especially from rural and backward regions in the world of
Islam. The question of who is at fault here -- the immigrant or the society -- is irrelevant. The reality is that Europe is moving
toward taking in fewer immigrants at a time when its economic future rides on its ability to take in
many more. The United States, on the other hand, is creating the first universal nation, made up of all colors,
races, and creeds, living and working together in considerable harmony. Consider the current presidential
election, in which the contestants have included a black man, a woman, a Mormon, a Hispanic, and an Italian American. Surprisingly,
many Asian countries (with India an exception) are in demographic situations similar to or even worse than
Europe's. The fertility rates in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are well below the replacement
level of 2.1 births per woman, and estimates indicate that the major East Asian nations will face a sizable reduction in their working-
age populations over the next half century. The working-age population in Japan has already peaked; by 2010, Japan will have three
million fewer workers than it did in 2005. The worker populations in China and South Korea are also likely to peak within the next
decade. Goldman Sachs predicts that China's median age will rise from 33 in 2005 to 45 in 2050, a remarkable graying of the population.
And Asian countries have as much trouble with immigrants as European countries do. Japan faces a large prospective worker shortage
because it can neither take in enough immigrants nor allow its women to fully participate in the labor force. The effects of an
aging population are considerable. First, there is the pension burden -- fewer workers supporting more gray-haired
elders. Second, as the economist Benjamin Jones has shown, most innovative inventors -- and the overwhelming
majority of Nobel laureates -- do their most important work between the ages of 30 and 44. A smaller
working-age population, in other words, means fewer technological, scientific, and managerial advances.
Third, as workers age, they go from being net savers to being net spenders, with dire ramifications for national
savings and investment rates. For advanced industrialized countries, bad demographics are a killer disease. The United States'
potential advantages today are in large part a product of immigration. Without immigration, the United States'
GDP growth over the last quarter century would have been the same as Europe's. Native-born white Americans have the same low
fertility rates as Europeans. Foreign students and immigrants account for 50 percent of the science
researchers in the country and in 2006 received 40 percent of the doctorates in science and engineering
and 65 percent of the doctorates in computer science. By 2010, foreign students will get more than 50 percent of all
the Ph.D.'s awarded in every subject in the United States. In the sciences, that figure will be closer to 75 percent. Half of all
Silicon Valley start-ups have one founder who is an immigrant or a first-generation American. In short,
the United States' potential new burst of productivity, its edge in nanotechnology and biotechnology, its ability to invent the future -- all
rest on its immigration policies. If the United States can keep the people it educates in the country, the innovation will happen there. If
they go back home, the innovation will travel with them. Immigration also gives the United States a quality rare for a rich
country -- dynamism. The country has found a way to keep itself constantly revitalized by streams of
people who are eager to make a new life in a new world. Some Americans have always worried about such immigrants
-- whether from Ireland or Italy, China or Mexico. But these immigrants have gone on to become the backbone of the American working
class, and their children or grandchildren have entered the American mainstream. The United States has been able to tap this
energy, manage diversity, assimilate newcomers, and move ahead economically. Ultimately, this is what
sets the country apart from the experience of Britain and all other past great economic powers that
have grown fat and lazy and slipped behind as they faced the rise of leaner, hungrier nations.
WNDI 2008 3
Yes Competitiveness – Econ

( ) Competitiveness strong – economy and technology
power.html
U.S. military power is not the cause of its strength but the consequence. The fuel is the United States'
economic and technological base, which remains extremely strong. The United States does face larger,
deeper, and broader challenges than it has ever faced in its history, and it will undoubtedly lose some share of
global GDP. But the process will look nothing like Britain's slide in the twentieth century, when the country
lost the lead in innovation, energy, and entrepreneurship. The United States will remain a vital, vibrant
economy, at the forefront of the next revolutions in science, technology, and industry. In trying to
understand how the United States will fare in the new world, the first thing to do is simply look around: the
future is already here. Over the last 20 years, globalization has been gaining breadth and depth. More
countries are making goods, communications technology has been leveling the playing field, capital has been
free to move across the world -- and the United States has benefited massively from these trends. Its
economy has received hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and its companies have entered new
countries and industries with great success. Despite two decades of a very expensive dollar, U.S. exports
have held ground, and the World Economic Forum currently ranks the United States as the world's
most competitive economy. ( ) GDP growth, the bottom line, has averaged just over three percent in the
United States for 25 years, significantly higher than in Europe or Japan. Productivity growth, the elixir
of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, a full percentage point higher than the
European average. This superior growth trajectory might be petering out, and perhaps U.S. growth will be
more typical for an advanced industrialized country for the next few years. But the general point -- that the
United States is a highly dynamic economy at the cutting edge, despite its enormous size -- holds.
WNDI 2008 4
Yes Competitiveness – WEF Ranking

( ) U.S. has the most competitive economy
AP (Associated Press), 10-31-2007, “U.S. regains status as the world’s most competitive economy,” IHT,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/31/business/compete.php
The United States has regained its status as the world's most competitive economy thanks to strong
innovation and excellent universities, according to a survey released Wednesday by the World Economic
Forum. The United States rebounded from sixth place last year to knock Switzerland from the top spot in
the "global competitiveness index." The Swiss were second this year, followed by Denmark, Sweden,
Germany and Finland. The study by the World Economic Forum said the United States was helped by
close cooperation between universities and business on research and development, its high intellectual
property protection, and its efficient use of employees and investment.
WNDI 2008 5
Yes Competitiveness – Nano/Biotech

( ) Competitiveness sustainable – U.S. leads in key future industries
power.html
Consider the industries of the future. Nanotechnology (applied science dealing with the control of matter
at the atomic or molecular scale) is likely to lead to fundamental breakthroughs over the next 50 years,
and the United States dominates the field. It has more dedicated "nanocenters" than the next three
nations (Germany, Britain, and China) combined and has issued more patents for nanotechnology than the
rest of the world combined, highlighting its unusual strength in turning abstract theory into practical
products. Biotechnology (a broad category that describes the use of biological systems to create medical,
agricultural, and industrial products) is also dominated by the United States. Biotech revenues in the
United States approached $50 billion in 2005, five times as large as the amount in Europe and representing
76 percent of global biotech revenues.
WNDI 2008 6
Yes Competitiveness – R&D

( ) Yes competitiveness – R&D research
Adam Segal, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, November/December 2004, “Is
America Losing Its Edge?,” Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-
segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=print
At the moment, it would be premature to declare a crisis in the United States' scientific or technological
competitiveness. The United States is still the envy of the world for reasons ranging from its ability to
fund basic scientific research to the speed with which its companies commercialize new breakthroughs.
This year, total U.S. expenditures on R&D are expected to top $290 billion-more than twice the total for
Japan, the next biggest spender. In 2002, the U.S. R&D total exceeded that of Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom combined (although the United States trailed Finland, Iceland, Japan,
South Korea, and Sweden in the ratio of R&D to GDP). And although scholars from other parts of the world
may write relatively more science and engineering papers than Americans do, U.S. research continues to be
cited the most. The United States also leads the major global technology markets, holding commanding
market shares in aerospace, scientific instruments, computers and office machinery, and
communications instruments. U.S. information and communications technology producers lead almost every
sector. And for the last two decades, U.S. firms have been the top providers of high-technology services,
accounting for about one-third of the world's total.
WNDI 2008 7
AT: Manufacturing
( ) Outsourcing doesn’t undermine competitiveness
power.html
Manufacturing has, of course, been leaving the country, shifting to the developing world and turning the
United States into a service economy. This scares many Americans, who wonder what their country will
make if everything is "made in China." But Asian manufacturing must be viewed in the context of a global
economy. The Atlantic Monthly's James Fallows spent a year in China watching its manufacturing juggernaut
up close, and he provides a persuasive explanation of how outsourcing has strengthened U.S.
competitiveness. What it comes down to is that the real money is in designing and distributing products
-- which the United States dominates -- rather than manufacturing them. A vivid example of this is the
iPod: it is manufactured mostly outside the United States, but most of the added value is captured by Apple,
in California.
WNDI 2008 8
AT: Engineers
( ) Engineer shortages aren’t tanking competitiveness
India Post, 3-18-2007, “China racing ahead of US/India in research ability,” http://indiapost.com/article/india/6/
Wadhwa said, "We reported that the US actually graduates a comparable number of such engineers, and
reported serious problems with the quality of Indian and Chinese graduates. We predicted shortages in
India and unemployment in China. It seems we were right."
( ) No engineer shortage
India Post, 3-18-2007, “China racing ahead of US/India in research ability,” http://indiapost.com/article/india/6/
5. It is not the education of Indian and Chinese workers that is causing outsourcing or a deficiency in
the American workforce â€“ it’s all about cost savings. There is no shortage of engineers in the U.S.
WNDI 2008 9
AT: Health Care

( ) Health care costs don’t substantially undermine competitiveness
Lee Hudson Teslik, Associate Editor @ Council on Foreign Relations, 3-18-2008, “Helath Care Costs and U.S.
Competitiveness,” Council on Foreign Relations Publishing
It is difficult to quantify the precise effect high healthcare costs have had so far on the U.S. job market.
Healthcare is one of several factors—entrenched union contracts are another—that make doing business in
the United States expensive and it’s difficult to parse the effects of each factor. Moreover, economists
disagree on the number of U.S. jobs that have been lost to offshoring—the transfer of business operations
across national boundaries to friendlier operating environments. The Princeton economist Alan S. Blinder,
in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article, says that judging by data compiled from “fragmentary studies,” it is
apparent that “under a million service-sector jobs in the United States have been lost to offshoring to
date.” Blinder goes on to predict that somewhere between 28 million and 42 million U.S. jobs are
“susceptible” to offshoring in a future where technology allows the more efficient transfer of jobs. Many
other economists, however, have shied away from making such estimates, and some have criticized Blinder’s
approach.
WNDI 2008 10
AT: Mil Spending/Overstretch

( ) Overstretch won’t tank competitiveness – only a small part of GDP
power.html
This difference between the United States and Britain is reflected in the burden of their military budgets.
Britannia ruled the seas but never the land. The British army was sufficiently small that Otto von Bismarck
once quipped that were the British ever to invade Germany, he would simply have the local police force
arrest them. Meanwhile, London's advantage over the seas -- it had more tonnage than the next two navies
put together -- came at ruinous cost. The U.S. military, in contrast, dominates at every level -- land, sea, air,
space -- and spends more than the next 14 countries combined, accounting for almost 50 percent of global
defense spending. The United States also spends more on defense research and development than the rest of
the world put together. And crucially, it does all this without breaking the bank. U.S. defense expenditure
as a percent of GDP is now 4.1 percent, lower than it was for most of the Cold War (under Dwight
Eisenhower, it rose to ten percent). As U.S. GDP has grown larger and larger, expenditures that would have
been backbreaking have become affordable. The Iraq war may be a tragedy or a noble endeavor, but
either way, it will not bankrupt the United States. The price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan together -- $125
billion a year -- represents less than one percent of GDP. The war in Vietnam, by comparison, cost the
equivalent of 1.6 percent of U.S. GDP in 1970, a large difference. (Neither of these percentages includes
second- or third-order costs of war, which allows for a fair comparison even if one disputes the exact
figures.)
WNDI 2008 11
Internals – Manufacturing
( ) Manufacturing key to competitiveness
William Bonvillian, Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Lieberman, Fall 2004, “Meeting the New
challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness,” Issues in Science and Technology,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200410/ai_n9457056/pg_9
Manufacturing and services. Dazzling prototypes are not sources of profit. Reliable and cost-competitive
products must be manufactured to reap the final reward of innovation. In the 1990s manufacturing
comprised 16 percent of the U.S. economy but contributed 30 percent of U.S. economic growth.
Manufacturing jobs on average pay 23 percent more than service sector jobs, but the United States lost
some 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in the recent recession, and few of these have returned. In addition to
providing a good salary, the average manufacturing job creates 4.2 jobs throughout the economy, which
is three times the rate for jobs in business and personal services. As a result of the improved productivity of
manufacturing workers, the sector's share of employment has fallen far faster than its share of GDP.
Although manufacturing has continued to increase productivity since 2000, this hasn't translated into
the economic gains we need. This is significant because manufacturing is a big multiplier. The Bureau of
Economic Analysis indicates that some economic sectors have a "multiplier effect" where growth in one
sector influences others; there is a 2.43 multiplier for manufacturing, compared to a 1.5 multiplier for
business services. Manufacturing remains the currency of the global economy. Selling high-value goods
in international trade is still the way nations and regions become rich. However, the U.S. trade deficit
in goods is exploding: It reached $482 billion in 2003 ($120 billion with China alone) and continues to
grow-without causing significant public alarm. For perspective, remember that the nation agonized over a
$22 billion deficit in 1981 and a $67 billion deficit in 1991. The argument that only the low end of
manufacturing is leaving simply is not true; key parts of high-end advanced manufacturing are moving
abroad. Manufacturing is also a dynamic factor in the innovation process. Historically, manufacturing
and the design and development stages of innovation have been closely interrelated and kept geographically
close to each other. This is particularly true for newer advanced technologies such as semiconductors. When
manufacturing departs, design and R&D often follow. In recent years, firms have been developing a
combined production and services model, carefully integrating the two to provide unique products and
services, and thus enhancing the importance of manufacturing. The talent erosion in the manufacturing base
is a particular concern. Economist Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School has argued that if high-
productivity jobs are lost to foreign rivals, long-term economic prosperity is compromised. John
Zysman of the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy believes that manufacturing is critical
even in the information age, because advanced mechanisms for production and the accompanying jobs are a
strategic asset whose location can make a nation an attractive place to create strategic advantage. Without a
strong manufacturing base, it is difficult to realize economic gain from technological innovation.
Because technology innovation and manufacturing process innovation are closely linked, the erosion of
the manufacturing base will affect the innovation system. To avoid the "hollowing out" of manufacturing,
action will be needed on a range of policies from trade promotion and enforcement, to tax policies to
encourage new investment, to programs for improving worker skills, to DOD efforts to ensure strategic
manufacturing capability. Innovation in the manufacturing process, however, might be the most important:
WNDI 2008 12
Impacts – General
( ) Competitiveness is key to the economy and hegemony
Adam Segal, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, November/December 2004, “Is
America Losing Its Edge?,” Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-
segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=print
Summary: For 50 years, the United States has maintained its economic edge by being better and faster
than any other country at inventing and exploiting new technologies. Today, however, its dominance is
starting to slip, as Asian countries pour resources into R&D and challenge America's traditional role in
the global economy. Adam Segal is Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on
Foreign Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China. The United
States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries
faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological
entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was
Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet;
other countries merely followed the U.S. lead.
WNDI 2008 13
Impacts – Hard Power

( ) Innovation is key to military superiority
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“Practical Engagement: Drawing a Fine Line for U.S.-China Trade,” The Washington Quarterly 2004 Summer
The brevity of the list of technologies the United States should try and control is the product of two processes
that have occurred over the last 10 years: the increasing importance of commercial producers in R&D and the
globalization of technological innovation. Unlike during the Cold War, government spending and
procurement no longer play a dominant role in commercial R&D, especially in IT sectors. In the 1970s, the
major semiconductor manufacturers were essentially government defense contractors; the Pentagon was the source of almost 50 percent
of the funding for semiconductor R&D from the 1950s to the 1970s. n29 In 2002, according to David Rose, director of export, import,
and information security affairs at Intel Corporation, all government procurement (including Defense Department contracts) accounted
for less than 1 percent of U.S. semiconductor sales, and that number is declining. n30 With the diminishing importance of
government funding, private firms play a greater role in maintaining the United States' national security.
Military capabilities are closely tied to the innovative capabilities of commercial producers. According
to a 1999 Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security, the Defense Department relies
"increasingly on the U.S. commercial advanced technology sector to push the technological envelope and
enable the [department] to 'run faster' than its competitors." n31
Continued innovation and technological dominance is key to military superiority

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly 1995
U.S. superiority in new weapons and their use would be critical. U.S. planners should therefore give higher
priority to research on new technologies, new concepts of operation, and changes in organization, with the
aim of U.S. dominance in the military technical revolution that may be emerging. They should also focus on
how to project U.S. systems and interests against weapons based on new technologies. The Persian Gulf
War gave a glimpse of the likely future. The character of warfare will change because of advances in
military technology, where the United States has the lead, and in corresponding concepts of operation and
organizational structure. The challenge is to sustain this lead in the face of the complacency that the current
U.S. lead in military power is likely to engender. Those who are seeking to be rivals to the United States
are likely to be very motivated to explore new technologies and how to use them against it. A determined
nation making the right choices, even though it possessed a much smaller economy, could pose an
enormous challenge by exploiting breakthroughs that made more traditional U.S. military methods less
effective by comparison. For example, Germany, by making the right technical choices and adopting
innovative concepts for their use in the 1920s and 1930s, was able to make a serious bid for world
domination. At the same time, Japan, with a relatively small GNP compared to the other major powers,
especially the United States, was at the forefront of the development of naval aviation and aircraft carriers.
These examples indicate that a major innovation in warfare provides ambitious powers an opportunity
to become dominant or near-dominant powers. U.S. domination of the emerging military-technical
revolution, combined with the maintenance of a force of adequate size, can help to discourage the rise of a
rival power by making potential rivals believe that catching up with the United States is a hopeless
proposition and that if they try they will suffer the same fate as the former Soviet Union.
WNDI 2008 14
Impacts – Leadership
( ) Competitiveness key to leadership
Rocco Leonard Martino, founder and chairman of the board of Cyber Technology Group, Spring 2007, “A
Strategy for Success: Innovation Will Renew American Leadership,” Science Direct, accessed: Orbis
While the foreign policy discussion in the United States today is focused upon the Iraq War and Islamist
terrorism, America also faces other, more long-term challenges to its physical security and economic
prosperity: the threats posed by our declining economic competitiveness and our dependence on Middle
Eastern oil. As in the past, America's ability to prevail over these challenges will depend on its
technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. The
United States needs a national strategy focused upon developing new technologies and creating new
industries.
( ) Competitiveness key to hegemony

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

Bruce Mehlman, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, 10-23-2003, “Technology Administration 21st
Century Policy Challenges for American Innovation Leadership,”
http://www.technology.gov/Speeches/BPM_031023.htm
Driven by convergence, globalization and radically disruptive new technologies such as nanotechnology,
changes in the 21st century will come faster, disruptions to legacy business models and products will cut
deeper, and the nations, firms, and individuals who succeed will be those best able to adapt. Coping with
this accelerating rate of change and complexity may prove to be the most significant dynamic
impacting American success and leadership in the 21st century. While the United States is better-
positioned for such a world right now than most other nations, competitors are rapidly gaining and
pressing their own comparative advantages. The future will be global, hyper-competitive,
technologically intensive, and rapidly changing… and we must be prepared.
WNDI 2008 15
Impacts – Economy
( ) Competitiveness key to the ecoomy
William Bonvillian, Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Lieberman, Fall 2004, “Meeting the New
challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness,” Issues in Science and Technology,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200410/ai_n9457056/pg_9
The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a highly talented
workforce, powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of
entrepreneurs and many dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing
economy, but it gives the country the wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S.
dominance are visible everywhere. Strong economic growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and
innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to fashion a new competitiveness agenda
designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of the new century. Once that
agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it.

Adv Competitiveness Aff 15

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

Adv Competitiveness Aff 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WNDI 2008 1

Competitiveness Adv Aff

Competitiveness Adv Aff

Yes Competitiveness – Immigration

Yes Competitiveness – Econ

Yes Competitiveness – WEF Ranking

Yes Competitiveness – Nano/Biotech

Yes Competitiveness – R&D

AT: Health Care

AT: Mil Spending/Overstretch

Impacts – Hard Power

Continued innovation and technological dominance is key to military superiority

( ) Competitiveness key to hegemony

( ) Competitiveness key to leadership

You might also like