Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[66]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[79]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[66]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-22 14:07:08.650
	1	+2017-03-22 14:07:08.0

Caselist.CitesClass[79]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,13 @@
	1	+Globalization is a façade; it prioritizes the rich, trapping us into a neoliberal order where we can’t take measures needed to aid the economy or the poor. Our argument isn’t that complete control is good, but rather that globalization is too extreme and doesn’t give the ability to make good economic decisions when needed- prefer our evidence
	2	+Monbiot 12 (George, environmental and political activist, Forbidden Planet, December 3, 2012, monbiot.com)
	3	+
	4	+Neoliberalism, also known as market fundamentalism or laissez-faire economics, purports to liberate the market from political interference. The state, it asserts, should do little but defend the realm, protect private property and remove barriers to business. In practice it looks nothing like this. What neoliberal theorists call shrinking the state looks more like shrinking democracy: reducing the means by which citizens can restrain the power of the elite. What they call “the market” looks more like the interests of corporations and the ultra-rich(1). Neoliberalism appears to be little more than a justification for plutocracy. The doctrine was first applied in Chile in 1973, as former students of the University of Chicago, schooled in Milton Friedman’s extreme prescriptions and funded by the CIA, worked alongside General Pinochet to impose a programme that would have been impossible in a democratic state. The result was an economic catastrophe, but one in which the rich – who took over Chile’s privatised industries and unprotected natural resources – prospered exceedingly(2). The creed was taken up by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It was forced upon the poor world by the IMF and the World Bank. By the time James Hansen presented the first detailed attempt to model future temperature rises to the US Senate in 1988(3), the doctrine was being implanted everywhere. As we saw in 2007 and 2008 (when neoliberal governments were forced to abandon their principles to bail out the banks), there could scarcely be a worse set of circumstances for addressing a crisis of any kind. Until it has no choice, the self-hating state will not intervene, however acute the crisis or grave the consequences. Neoliberalism protects the interests of the elite against all comers.
	5	+
	6	+And, Free trade doesn’t help the developing world- It kills growth, creating an illusion of progress
	7	+Ian Fletcher, Huffington post, Free Trade Isn’t Helping World Poverty 03/18/2011 11:41 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011 Author, ‘Free Trade Doesn’t Work,’ Advisor, Coalition for a Prosperous America, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/free-trade-isnt-helping-w_b_837893.html
	8	+Unfortunately, free trade just doesn’t work as a global anti-poverty strategy. The spreading Third World affluence one sees in TV commercials only means that the thin upper crust of Western-style consumers is now more widespread than ever before. But having more affluent people in the Third World is not the same as the Third World as a whole nearing the living standards of the First. This is actually not a terribly big secret, and is fairly well known to the people who promote free trade. For a start, the World Bank standard for poverty is $2 a day, so “moving people out of poverty” can merely consist in moving people from $1.99 a day to $2.01 a day. In one major study, there were only two nations in which the average beneficiary jumped from less than $1.88 to more than $2.13: Pakistan and Thailand. Every other nation was making minor jumps in between. The developing world’s gains from trade liberalization (insofar as there are any) are concentrated in a relatively small group of nations, due to the fact that only a few developing nations have economies that are actually capable of taking advantage of freer trade to any meaningful extent. Although it depends a bit on the model, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Vietnam, and Turkey generally take the lion’s share. This list sounds impressive, but it actually leaves out most Third World nations. Dirt-poor nations like Haiti aren’t even on the radar. Even nations one notch up the scale, like Bolivia, barely figure. So forget helping starving children in Africa this way. They’re not even in the game of international trade—let alone winners of it. Like it or not, this is perfectly logical, as increased access to the ruthlessly competitive global marketplace (which is all free trade provides) benefits only nations whose industries have something to sell which foreign trade barriers are currently keeping out. Their industries must both be strong enough to be globally competitive and have pent-up potential due to trade barriers abroad, a fairly rare combination. As a result, the most desperately impoverished nations, which have few or no internationally competitive industries, have basically nothing to gain from freer trade. What progress against poverty has occurred in the world in recent decades has not been due to free trade, but due to the embrace of mercantilism and industrial policy by some poor nations. (This is, of course, the same way nations like the U.S. and England became prosperous hundreds of years ago.) According to the World Bank, the entire net global decline in the number of people living in poverty since 1981 has been in mercantilist China, where free trade is spurned. “2008 World Development Indicators: Poverty Data Supplement,” The World Bank, 2008, p. 10. Elsewhere, their numbers have grown. The story on global economic progress for poor nations in the last 30 years is roughly as follows: 1. China (one fifth of humanity) braked its population growth, made a quantum leap from agrarian Marxism to industrial mercantilism, and thrived—largely because the U.S. was so open to being the “designated driver” of its export-centered growth strategy during this period. 2. India (another fifth) sharply increased the capitalist share of its mixture of capitalism and Gandhian-Fabian socialism after 1991. It did reasonably well, but not as well as China and not well enough to reduce the absolute number of its people living in poverty, given unbraked population growth. 3. Latin America lost its way after the oil shocks of the 1970s, experienced the 1980s as an economic “lost decade,” and tried to implement the free market Washington Consensus in the 1990s. It didn’t get the promised results, so some nations responded with a pragmatic retreat from free market purism, others with a lurch to the left, the former showing results in the last five years or so. 4. The collapse of Communism left some nations (Cuba, North Korea) marooned in Marxist poverty, while others (Uzbekistan, Mongolia) discovered that the only thing worse than an intact communist economy is the wreckage of one. Much of Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR got burned by an overly abrupt transition to capitalism, then recovered at various speeds. 5. Sub-Saharan Africa spent much of this period in political chaos, with predictable economic results (except for South Africa and Botswana). Washington Consensus policies in the 1990s did not deliver, and the few recent bright spots have yet to deliver increased per capita income or lower unemployment. 6. Other poor countries followed patterns one through five to varying degrees, with corresponding outcomes. China is unquestionably the star here. But all its brutally efficient achievements in forcing up the living standards of its people from an extremely low base, it still has serious problems. Its growth miracle has been largely confined to the metropolitan areas of the country’s coastal provinces. Of the 800 million peasants left behind in agriculture, perhaps 400 million have seen their incomes stagnate or even decline. Over the last 30 years of greatly expanding free trade, most of the world’s poor nations have actually seen the gap between themselves and the rest of the world increase. As economist Dani Rodrik of Harvard summarizes the data: The income gap between these regions of the developing world and the industrial countries has been steadily rising. In 1980, 32 Sub-Saharan countries had an income per capita at purchasing power parity equal to 9.3 percent of the U.S. level, while 25 Latin American and Caribbean countries had an income equal to 26.3 percent of the U.S. average. By 2004, the numbers had dropped to 6.1 percent and 16.5 percent respectively for these two regions. This represents a drop of over 35 percent in relative per capita income. Today, because a few formerly poor nations are succeeding economically while most have been hit with economic decline, the world is splitting into a “twin peaks” income distribution, with a hollowing out of middle-income countries. A significant number of nations have gone backwards, and are now poorer than they were a generation ago. Most poor nations have high fertility, so population growth drags down their per capita income by a percentage point or two every year if economic growth does not outpace it. Contrary to impressions in the media, economic success is actually becoming more concentrated in the Western world, not less. According to one summary of the data by Syed Murshed of Erasmus University in Holland: Between 1960 and 2000 the Western share of rich countries has been increasing; to be affluent has almost become an exclusive Western prerogative—16 out of 19 non-Western nations who were rich in 1960 traversed into less affluent categories by 2000 (for example, Algeria, Angola, and Argentina). Against that, four Asian non-rich countries moved into the first group. Most non-Western rich nations in 1960 joined the second income group by 2000, and most non-Western upper-middle-income countries in 1960 had fallen into the second and third categories by 2000. Of 22 upper-middle-income nations in 1960, 20 had declined into the third and fourth income categories, among them the Democratic Republic of the Congo, also known recently as Zaire, and Ghana. Most nations in the third group in 1960 descended into the lowe
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+The alternative is to turn the system upside down - in a mass rejection of neoliberal globalization, we say that developing countries should enact protectionist policies in defiance of globalization. This allows development and fights poverty.
	12	+llen Frank, 2004, a member of the DandS collective, is senior economic analyst at the Poverty Institute at Rhode Island College and author of The Raw Deal: How Myths and Misinformation about the Deficit, Inflation, and Wealth Impoverish America (Beacon Press, 2004).Dollars and Sense, http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0704dollar.html
	13	+The modern theory of free trade argues that countries are “endowed” with certain quantities of labor, capital, and natural resources. A country with lots of labor but little capital should specialize in the production of labor-intensive goods, like hand-woven rugs, hand-sewn garments, or hand-picked fruit. By ramping up production of these goods, a developing country can trade on world markets, earning the foreign exchange to purchase capital-intensive products like computers and cars. Free trade thus permits poor countries (or, to be more precise, their most well-off citizens) to consume high-tech goods that they lack the ability to produce and so obtain higher living standards. “Capital-rich” countries like the United States benefit from relatively cheap fruit and garments, freeing up their workforce to focus on high-tech goods. Free trade, according to this story, is a win-win game for everyone. The flaw in this tale, which you have hit upon exactly, is that being “capital-rich” or “capital-poor” is not a natural phenomenon like having lots of oil. Capital is created—typically with plenty of government assistance and protection. Developing countries can create industrial capacity and train their citizens to manufacture high-tech goods. But doing so takes time. Building up the capacity to manufacture computers, for example, at prices that are competitive with firms in developed countries may take several years. To buy this time, a government needs to keep foreign-made computers from flooding its market and undercutting less-established local producers. It also needs to limit inflows of foreign capital.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-22 14:07:12.444

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+idk

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Arlington BK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+66

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Crowley Reed Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+UIL-Neolib K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+UIL Districts at Arlington