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

on the United States

Contention One: The USA still has good control over the BRIC nations

-Despite the rise of the BRIC countries, the USA is still the best economically. The United States is

currently ranked as the most competitive economy in the world by the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. We

haven't become less powerful in any way than the countries of BRIC. The US still has leverage over the

BRIC nations.

-Currently, all four of the BRICs have an economic bind with the US; this gives the US a financial

leverage. In the case of China, the US has a vast monetary flow of goods from China; however they

need us more than we need them. The US could find a cheaper source of imports because neither

India nor China has a monopoly on cheap labor. These countries are huge destinations for American

products, says Mark Brawley Professor at McGill University, "As destinations for American exports,

China ranked 4th, Brazil 13th, India 21st, and Russia 33rd." The fact that the countries of BRIC need

us means that they would never do anything to jeopardize that. Nor have the countries ever done

anything to do that in the past, they haven't seen the rise in economy as a chance to take power.

- -The countries of BRIC aren't seen as a threat to US economy. Infact, the countries of BRIC are

opening a wide automakers market in developing countries that need more transportation. Currently

the carmakers of US are having a tougher time than ever, and after years of allying with India, this

economic rise may come to us a benefit. The economist in 2008 Said "there is a huge unsatisfied

demand in the big emerging car markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Not to mention, the levels

of personal debt are far lower and smaller proportion of cars are bought on credit." The BRIC countries

are moving rapidly enough, even at a slowdown, that the countries would benefit the USA

Contention Two: The countries of BRIC are commited to environmental issues

Alana Herro of World watch says "Brazil, Russia, India, and China--all scored in the top 11 in a recent

ranking of countries' commitment to the environment". The results indicate that when it comes to

finding solutions to climate change, "rich countries should take the lead, but developing countries need
to follow pretty closely behind," said David Roodman of the Center for Global Development (CGD). This

proves that the rise of these developing countries has a great impact on the environmental changes,

which directly connect to Americans because of the incoming climate change, and we need everyone

to help with ending pollution. Brazil, Russia, and India all ranked in the top five because they

performed well in measurements of greenhouse gas emissions per capita and consumption of ozone-

depleting substances in 2007, this was the first time these countries were part of the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development to test if they were environmentally sound, mainly because

they were finally developing at the time. Collectively, we are all contributing to climate change, and the

end of this must be a group effort, the rise of BRIC and the third world countries in this has started

their efforts of the stop of climate change.

Report this Argument

Con

I would like first thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate, and I wish them luck in the rounds

to come. I will begin by addressing my opponent's arguments, and I will then move into my own

arguments.

My opponent first contested that "Despite the rise of the BRIC countries, the USA is still the best

economically." I do not refute this, but it is nevertheless irrelevant. While the USA does still have the

best economy of all these nations, this fact does not serve as evidence that any of the BRIC countries

have had a positive impact on the US or its economy. My opponent then went on to discuss the

financial leverage that the US holds over these countries because of an economic bind. However, it is

important to remember how much financial leverage these countries have over the United States.

According to the US Department of the Treasury, as of November 2008, $3085.9 billion of the national

debt was held by foreign countries. This includes $681.9 billion to mainland China, $129.6 billion to

Brazil, $78.1 billion to Russia, and $16.2 billion to India (http://www.treas.gov...). These holdings give

these countries immense leverage over the US, and as their economies continue to grow, the amount

of debt owed to them by the US also increases, as the US continues to increase its national debt. This

gives these nations tremendous leverage over the United States, for if they were to pull out of this
relationship they have with the US, it would create a tremendous credit crisis, which would be severely

detrimental to the U.S. economy. My opponent has contended that these nations are the destinations

for a large number of American exports. This may be true, but the fact still remains that the U.S. was

operating in a $40.4 billion trade deficit, as of November 2008 (http://www.census.gov...), which

means that $40.4 billion greater worth of goods and services are imported than exported. Thus, while

the U.S. may send a relatively large number of exports to these countries, the level of imports coming

back from them is exponentially greater. This increases the trade deficit thus lowering GDP.

My opponent next goes on to argue that "the countries of the BRIC aren't seen as a threat to the U.S.

economy." This statement is completely subjective and its validity would depend on the source it

comes from. Certainly, domestic labor unions would not agree with this statement because growing

foreign economies threaten U.S. jobs. My opponent next references the stuggling US automakers,

claiming that a growing foreign demand for cars will help these companies to recover. This is not true.

Despite a growing foreign demand for cars, it is the foreign automakers that are dominating the world

market, including the market here in the US. One of the main reasons for the struggling US

automakers is that they have been unable to keep pace with foreign competition. Thus, the foreign

market is actually more of a threat, than a help, to the U.S. automakers. Also, this increasing foreign

demand for cars also creates an immensely increased foreign demand for oil. As foreign countries

continue to industrialize, their demand for oil approaches the level demanded by the US. This will drive

oil prices up, meaning gasoline will become increasingly expensive here in the US, while increasingly

scarce worldwide.

My opponent's last argument claims that "The countries of the BRIC are committed to environmental

issues." My opponent makes reference to the "incoming climate change" and how "we need everyone

to help with ending pollution." While it may very well be true that these countries are environmentally-

friendly, it is unavoidable that their pollution output will continually increase as they grow further

industrialized. Thus, while these countries may make efforts to minimize their pollution, this output of

pollution will nevertheless increase as these countries grow; in other words, these efforts to reduce

pollution do not have an ultimately positive impact on the US, given that pollution levels will still
increase.

Now, onto my arguments.

1) One of the major problems facing the average American citizen today is job loss. As companies look

to cut costs, they continue to look to foreign labor. As these foreign economies continue to grow, the

US loses more and more jobs to foreign competition as domestic companies move their factories

overseas, looking for reduced costs.

2) Newly created domestic industries, as well as struggling domestic industries, have less of a chance

of survival because foreign competition has such lower costs. This competition means we will see

fewer and fewer new industries developing in the United States.

3) Dumping becomes a factor as these countries import their goods to the United States. As has been

suspected recently with China, these countries are continually growing, but in turn often undervalue

their currency. US industries are unable to compete with these imports, because they are able to be

sold cheaper than it actually costs to produce the product overseas.

4) All of these factors combine to lower the overall GDP. As imports from these foreign countries

increase, GDP is lowered. Also, as more and more US companies move overseas, there is less business

investment in the US. This lowers GDP.

5) The US is unable to diversify its economy. As foreign economies expand and begin to dominate

many of the markets for goods and servces, the US is unable to diversify what it produces. Right now,

the majority of US exports come from agriculture and computer technologies. The market for

agriculture is unreliable because changes in weather patterns and such can have dramatic

repercussions on agricultural output. Computer technology is relatively expensive, with fairly elastic

demand. This means that computer technology has a relatively low demand throughout the world.

Because the market for most cheaper products is dominated by foreign competition, the US is left with
these as its main output. This lacks diversity, which also does not benefit GDP.

I look forward to my opponent's response, and more challenges in the upcoming rounds.
Report this Argument

Pro

I'd like to start by defending my case then I will go on to refute my opponent's case, and I thank them

for accepting this debate.

They started by saying my first contention "USA is still best economically" is irrelevant, however, I

would like to start by saying it is more than relevant. The BRIC countries are rising economically and

our GDP has actually increased over the years BRIC has been in service (2003-2009). And although

they do import the US goods, it doesn't stop the fact that we have leverage over them as well. Not

only do they need us for our exports to them, but do they need us for the money we send them, the

rise of BRIC was never seen as a way to ruin in US government, if anything it was seen as a way for

the world to become more unified economically. My opponent goes on to say that the countries of

BRIC hold much of our debt, although that may be true, if it weren't for these countries the USA

wouldn't be able to afford the Bail out plan, or the war in Iraq and Iran, the rise of BRIC gave them

strong enough economies to give us loans. Although we may be in debt now, I can assure you the long

term affect of the bail out plan will give the country many economic benefits. You must not forget that

we were part of BRIC's economic rise, The USA funded much of the economies of the BRIC nations,

through imports/exports and government relations. Although we do get many goods from these

foreign countries, it still saves us millions of dollars because the products and goods in those foreign

countries are much cheaper than they would be here. Even so, like I previously stated, India and China

do not have a monopoly on cheap labor, we COULD get labor from other countries, but why stop while

the BRIC countries are ahead?

These foreign jobs in the BRIC countries help many American businesses stay in business because of
the economic growth going on in those countries. BRIC countries are reportedly in need of more

transportation and our goods because of their economic rise. We, however, do not need more cars

much less of anything we are exporting to BRIC nations. The rise of BRIC nations has helped our

governmental economy because businesses are flourishing.

My opponent mentioned how the countries will pollute more because of their growth, but that fact is

false. The only way for these countries to bring down their pollution output is to get alternate sources

of fuel, like bio fuel or nuclear energy, however, these countries cannot get these sources of energy

with out a good economy, Brazil and USA are currently working together on bio fuels in their country,

not to mention India and china are opening several nuclear plants through out their countries. Pollution

levels will decrease if BRIC nations and America can cooperate on how to switch our sources of energy

to cleaner energy.

Now, onto refuting my opponents

c-1) My opponent states that "the US loses more and more jobs to foreign competition" this may have

been true in the past, but the countries are working hard on their economies, the cost of foreign

products will increase putting these businesses at not much of a choice but to pull out of these jobs

overseas and give the jobs to American citizens, sometimes it takes a crisis like the recession to start a

breakthrough. But do not get this confused with stopping selling cars and other products to these

countries, for we do benefit from that.

c-2) My opponent stated that "domestic industries, have less of a chance of survival because foreign

competition has such lower costs" but like I previously stated, the rise of these countries will most

likely increase the workers' wage to keep up with the rise in economy, so in turn, these countries will

not be a form of cheap labor and Americans can bring the jobs back to America because of the

economic rise of BRIC. I do not see how the lower costs of work their has much to do with the

economic RISE.

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

increase the prices of these goods, making this argument beside the point.

c-4) My opponent says GDP will be lowered, however did I not mention that the us GDP has infact

increased over the rise of BRIC? My opponent may be saying it will decrease, but you must keep in

mind the resolution is HAS HAD a positive impact, not will have, so this argument is irrelevant.

c-5) I fail to see the significance of the diversity of the US output of goods, what does this have to do

with the resolution that the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the US? But also, these

companies DO depend on our goods because we are the first to have them, computer technology sales

are nothing short of increasing.

so again thanks for taking this challenge.

Report this Argument

Con

I would like to first address my opponent's numerous counter-arguments. They began by stating "The

BRIC countries are rising economically and our GDP has actually increased over the years the BRIC has

been in service (2003-2009)." I will reiterate - I do not refute any of this. However I still maintain that

it is irrelevant. First, it is quite obvious that the BRIC countries are "rising economically," as this is the

basis for this debate. Second, indeed GDP has risen over the years that the "BRIC has been in service,"

but this is irrelevant because GDP has in fact been rising since around the beginning of World War II

(http://www.bea.gov...). It is a logical fallacy to contest that the BRIC has caused GDP to increase, as

this does not demonstrate a plausible cause-effect relationship. My opponent has presented no

sufficient evidence to prove that the rise of the BRIC has caused GDP growth. My opponent then goes

on to once again claim that "not only do they need us for our exports to them, but do they need us for

the money we send them," claiming that these countries holding our debt is a good thing for the US. I

will once again reiterate: the US depends much more heavily on foreign exports, then these foreign

countries depend on our exports. I have presented reputable data to support this. As for the argument
about borrowing from these countries as a good thing, I will remind you that I merely presented this

data to illustrate that these countries do, indeed, have a great deal of leverage over the United States.

Whether or not this borrowing is good for the US is, in and of itself, debatable. Let's just assume for

the sake of this debate, that this borrowing is positive. There is no evidence to suggest that the rise of

the BRIC has had anything to do with this. The national debt has existed since the 1930's, and the US

has been borrowing from foreign countries long before the BRIC had begun to

rise(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Thus, the fact that the BRIC has risen does not suggest that there has

been any impact on the USA's borrowing from these foreign countries.

My opponent has claimed that the USA was "part of the BRIC's rise." I again argue that this is

irrelevant, because it does not prove that the rise of the BRIC has had a positive impact on the US. It

is inevitable that the USA would be part of any country's economic rise. The USA is an economic leader

in the world and provides an immense market in which to sell goods. It is fairly obvious that the USA

would play a role in the rise of the BRIC economies, or of any economy, for that matter. This does not

suggest that the rise of the BRIC has positively impacted the US, however.

My opponent went on to claim that these countries save US consumers "millions of dollars because the

products and goods in these foreign countries are much cheaper than they would be here." They then

go on to reiterate their point that China and India "do not have a monopoly on cheap labor." I will not

refute that cheap imports benefit domestic consumers. However, there is no evidence to suggest that

the rise of the BRIC has had any positive impact on this. In fact, Brazil, Russia, India, and China have

been amongst the top fifteen sources of US imports long before the the time frame that my opponent

presented in which this rise of the BRIC has occurred.

My opponent states that "BRIC countries are reportedly in need of more transportation and our goods

because of their economic rise." First, no sources have yet been cited, I would question the origin of

this, and all other reports that my opponent has mentioned. Second, irregardless of validity, this

statement is vague and broad, not suggestive of any positive impact. Foreign countries have been in

need of transportation and US exports for quite some time. How does this serve as evidence for a
positive impact?

In claiming that "pollution levels will decrease if BRIC nations and America can cooperate on how to

switch our sources of energy to cleaner energy," I must once again assert that my opponent has

employed faulty logic. Pollution levels will decrease if any countries can cooperate to come up with

cleaner sources of energy. But this is all hypothetical. Where has a positive impact ACTUALLY occured,

and how can this be concretely linked to the rise of the BRIC? I will once again reiterate my previous

argument that pollution levels in industrializing nations will undoubtedly increase, regardless of

environmental protection efforts, because these countries will simply have more sources of pollution as

they grow (i.e. more cars, factories, trash, etc.).

My opponent has attempted to refute my previous arguments, however there is not one instance in

which they have provided a convincing counter-argument. I will address each counter argument that

my opponent has given proceeding where he has written "Now, onto refuting my opponents." :

1) My opponent claims that as these countries grow, their labor costs will increase, which will mean US

labor will ultimately not be threatened. This is not necessarily true. It all depends on the regulations

these foreign governments implement regarding labor. In the US, we have numerous labor laws, which

makes domestic labor more expensive and altogether less appealing for businesses. Hypothetically,

even if these foreign labor costs do increase, how will this positively impact the US?

2) I will reiterate that the lower costs of work has EVERYTHING to do with the "economic RISE." The

whole reason that these economies have risen is because businesses have been willing to invest in

these lower costs. This means, if a US business puts a factory in a third-world developing country, that

factory will not be subject to the same environmental restrictions, nor its workers protected by the

same labor laws, as would be found in the US. This means an altogether more efficient means of

production for this business, that is ultimately much cheaper. This is why US businesses invest in

foreign economies. It is this business investment that has allowed these economies to grow.
3) My opponent has made virtually the same argument - that the rise in these economies will

ultimately cause a rise in their labor costs - three times in a row. As I have already illustrated, the logic

to this is faulty, though nevertheless irrelevant.

4) GDP has been increasing for over half a century. I will clarify that when I argued that GDP will be

lowered, it was intended that the rate of GDP GROWTH will decrease. There is no evidence to support

that the BRIC has positively impacted GDP.

5) It is difficult to understand how diversification of the US economy is unimportant. As of now the US

specializes in high priced goods and agricultural products. While agricultural products have a high and

inelastic demand worldwide, uncontrollable factors such as weather patterns and infertility can

drastically alter the production of this. Meanwhile, high priced computer technology has a relatively

low, and elastic demand worldwide. What if these two main exports become unreliable? Then the US is

left to depend on its domestic service industries, and these are not exported. As more and more

foreign economies grow, this phenomenon of specialization will become more prominent, especially in

the US. With an economy that lacks diversity, a small number of factors could have tremendous

adverse effects. I question the basis of facts where my opponent has argued "computer technology

sales are nothing short of increasing."

There is no connection that links the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, or China's economies to a positive

impact on the US. As it stands now, the US economy is far worse off than it was in 2003 (the year in

which my opponent has stated this "rise" began). How does this indicate that the US has been

positively affected by anything?