US Growth Good Core
US Growth Good ............................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
US Growth Good Core ................................................................................................................................ 1
US Growth Good – Democracy ............................................................................................................... 2
US Growth Good – Econ Wars .................................................................................................................... 3
US Growth Good – Econ Wars ................................................................................................................ 4
US Growth Good – Environment ................................................................................................................ 6
US Growth Good – Environment ............................................................................................................ 7
US Growth Good - Environment ............................................................................................................. 9
US Growth Good – Environment – Tech Solves.................................................................................... 11
US Growth Good – Global Warming ......................................................................................................... 12
US Growth Good – Global Warming ..................................................................................................... 13
US Growth Good – Global Warming ..................................................................................................... 14
US Growth Good – Heg ............................................................................................................................. 16
US Growth Good - Heg ......................................................................................................................... 17
US Growth Good – Poverty ...................................................................................................................... 19
US Growth Good - Poverty ................................................................................................................... 20
US Growth Good – Racism........................................................................................................................ 21
US Growth Good - Racism .................................................................................................................... 22
US Growth Good – Resource Wars ........................................................................................................... 23
US Growth Good – AT Resource Wars .................................................................................................. 24
US Growth Good – Terrorism ................................................................................................................... 25
US Growth Good - Terrorism ................................................................................................................ 26
US Growth Good - Terrorism ................................................................................................................ 27
US Growth Good – US-China War............................................................................................................. 28
US Growth Good – US-China War......................................................................................................... 29
US Growth Good – Space ......................................................................................................................... 31
US Growth Good - Space ...................................................................................................................... 32
US Growth Good – Democracy
Growth key to democracy
William J Baumol, professor of economics at NYU, Robert E. Litan, Senior Fellow of Economic
Studies at the Brookings Institute, and Carl J. Schramm, President and chief executive officer
of the Kauffman Foundation,” 2007, Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of
Growth and Prosperity
Now, ask the question the other way around:
does economic growth lead to democracy? Certainly the
experience of South Korea, which for decades after World War II was essentially a benevolent
autocracy but eventually became a democratic form of government, supports this viewGlaeser et al.,
2004). As incomes grow, so does a country’s middle class, which is more likely and able to demand
political freedom. Conversely, here is ample evidence that countries already democratic are likely to
backslide from that form of government when their economies perform poorly. It is striking, for
example, that three-fourths of the collapses of democracies since 1977 were preceded by stagnant
growth.2° But skeptics remain about the inevitability of democracy following strong economic growth. China has become a flash
point. To some, continued growth in China may only strengthen the hand of the state and make it easier to deny political freedom
(Bueno de Mesquita and Downs, 2005). Or as China gains economic strength, it will have more resources to pursue expansionist
military objectives. At this point, of course, it is impossible to know whether the optimists or pessimists will prove to be correct
about China. Our own view is that the odds are with the optimists— namely, that economic
growth eventually will
help democratize China, as it will other countries—but there can be no guarantee of this result. One reason
for being optimistic is to look to America’s early history and especially the experiences of many of the
country’s founding fathers, which demonstrate that business skills can hone the talents needed
to achieve and maintain self-governance. Benjamin Franklin, one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence,
left copious writings describing how he had developed his diplomatic skills in the course of establishing himself as a printer. Paul
Revere, a silversmith, was a consummate net- worker who used business contacts to coordinate the revolutionary effort. Alexander
Hamilton, who managed a clerical office while still in his teens, later applied those skills to organize the Department of the Treasury.
Even Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton’s adversary, who argued that America should remain a nation of farmers, was hardly the
stereotypical rustic at the plow He managed a sizable plantation and sought more scientific ways to cultivate it. In short, he was
much like the best American entrepreneurs: a striver and learner, often brimming with ego and unconventional opinions, but civicminded and, in the end, a farsighted philanthropist. In short, the experience of economic freedom seems to breed both the skills and
the inclination for political freedom. China’s business leaders may not be able to steer their country in the same way. Butdoes
that possibility mean that other countries—the United States, in particular—should do their best to thwart
economic growth in China (or in other autocratically ruled countries, for that matter)? In our view, such a course is a
recipe for a much more dangerous world. Autocrats who are shunned by rich countries would thus be given easy
scapegoats for their countries’ poor economic performance The politics of “blaming foreigners” has a long and
unfortunately successful history. Why give autocrats such easy ammunition? We believe the better
course is to urge autocracies at least to recognize economic rights—in particular, the ability to start a business and to be rewarded if
successful. The odds, in our view, suggest that political
rights eventually will follow.
US Growth Good – Econ Wars
US Growth Good – Econ Wars
Growth key to interdependence – solves all wars.
ValentinKrustev, Department of Political Science at Rice University, 2006, “Interdependence
and the Duration of Militarized Conflict,” Journal of Peace Research, sage
According to the opportunity-cost argument, interdependence promotes peace by raising the
costs of militarized conflict (Polachek, 1980; Polachek, Robst& Chang, 1999). Conflict becomes more costly,
in turn, because the fighting parties, in addition to bearing the costs of waging warfare, forfeit the potential
gains from trading, owing to government-imposed restrictions and increased business risks. However, these conflictinhibiting effects of interdependence are not limited only to the pre-conflict phase of a
dispute, and the opportunity-cost argument can explain how the prospect of further trade
losses provides incentives for conflict termination as well. As some scholars have observed, any theory of the
effect of interdependence on conflict should be grounded in a solid understanding of the occurrence and dynamic of conflict itself
(Morrow, 1999, 2003; Gartzke, 2003b). While traditionally multiple theories of conflict have proliferated in the study of IR, recent
scholarship has drawn attention to its informational origins (Fearon, 1995; Gartzke, 1999). As Fearon (1995) argues, if most
conflicts end in some negotiated settlement over the disputed issue, rational states should
prefer to conclude that settlement prior to incurring the conflict costs, as the bargaining range
of mutually acceptable settlements is guaranteed to be non-empty when these costs are
positive. A very common reason for states sometimes being unable to reach a rational pre-conflict settlement emerges in the
asymmetry of information, combined with states’ incentives to misrepresent their reservation values. Conflict, on the other hand,
helps states to credibly communicate these reservation values by demonstrating their willingness to incur its costs or revealing the
true magnitude of the costs, as an expanding informational literature on war suggests (e.g. Wagner, 2000; Filson& Werner, 2002;
Slantchev, 2003). The opportunity-cost logic implies that interdependence can enter the theoretical framework outlined above
through the conflict-cost parameters, as interdependence increases these costs. Following Fearon’s (1995) discussion, higher conflict
costs increase the pre-conflict bargaining range and should, therefore, decrease the probability of conflict. In their calculus, states
balance the size of their demands against the probability that these demands exceed the opponent’s reservation value and are
rejected. Higher
conflict costs due to greater interdependence worsen states’ conflict payoffs
and push them to lower their demands, which, in turn, results in a reduced probability of
conflict onset.8 Signaling arguments, on the other hand, suggest that interdependence allows states to credibly communicate
their resolve or reservation values by severing an advantageous economic relationship that an unresolved state would not
terminate.The
credible communication made possible by interdependence reduces the
uncertainty existing over the bargaining range and increases the likelihood of a settlement
short of war (e.g. Gartzke, 2003a,b; Morrow, 2003). Thus, if we adopt Fearon’s (1997) terminology, signaling implies that
interdependence allows states to ‘sink costs’, while the opportunitycost logic is more reminiscent of ‘tying hands’; that is,
interdependence affects states’ behavior by changing their incentives. The opportunity-cost argument
for why interdependence inhibits militarized conflict can be easily extended to account for the
effect of interdependence on the duration of conflict. If interdependence raises the
opportunity costs of conflict prior to its onset, then these costs should also remain high after
onset, because, at least in the short term when firms have not permanently reoriented their
business operations, they will gain if hostilities cease and normal trade with the adversary is
restored. Then, just as the higher prospective costs of conflict push states to lower their
demands and avert conflict prior to its onset, so do these higher prospective costs push states
to settle early, even if conflict has not fully served its informational purpose and states might be forfeiting the better deal they
can get if they know more. That is, the purpose of militarized conflict is to overcome asymmetric information, but conflict costs are
the price states have to pay to extract that information. The
higher these costs are due to interdependence, the
sooner are states likely to settle on unfavorable
more expensive the information-revelation process is, and the
terms rather than continue fighting.
Statistically proven
Brock Blomberg, Professor of Economics at Wellesley College, Gregory Hess, Professor of
Economics at Oberlin College, February 2002, “The Temporal Links between Conflict and
Economic Activity,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, sage
To begin this temporal “causal” investigation, we first need to develop a statistical framework to estimate the joint, dynamic
determination of the occurrence of internal conflict, external conflict, and growth. Because conflict is measured as a discrete
variable, researchers typically estimate the occurrence as a probability, or if we consider both internal and external conflict, we can
always estimate the joint probability distribution. But are there similar interpretations of economic activity as a discrete state?
Indeed, a broad literature considers the evolution of states in the economy as the natural progression of phases. In fact, one of the
key historical studies of U.S. and international business cycles, undertaken by Burns and Mitchell (1944), treated the state of the
economy as either an expansion or contraction, on which the National Bureau of Economic Research’s dating procedure for
recessionswas founded.4 The relevance for our study is that breakpoints
in the state of the economy, either
expansion or recession, are analogous to break points in peace—internal or external conflicts.5 Using an
unbalanced panel of data covering 152 countries from 1950 to 1992, we therefore consider the joint determination of internal
conflict, external conflict, and the state of the economy as measured by the aforementioned discrete variables.We find that the
relationship between the variables is not a simple one.Conflict
does appear to be highly related to the
economy for the entire sample.However, it seems to be most highly related when considering certain nation-groups. For
nondemocracies or in regions highly populated by nondemocracies, there seems to be an
intimate link between a poor economy and the decision to go to war—both internally and
externally. These results confirm much of the original hypotheses put forth in Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2001)—namely, that
there is compelling evidence of a conditional poverty-conflict trap.
US Growth Good – Environment
US Growth Good – Environment
Economic growth is the only way to improve environmental quality
George Economides, Assistant Professor of International and European Economic Studies, and
ApostolisPhilippopoulos, Professor in the Department of Economics, Athens University of
Economics and Business, 1-2008, “Growth enhancing policy is the means to sustain the
environment,” Review of Economic Dynamics, vol 11 no 1, Science Direct
Focusing on the long run, our results are as follows. First, the Ramsey government can lead the
economy to sustainable balanced growth (namely, a situation in which the economy is
capable of long-term growth without damaging the environment). Thus, long-term growth is
socially optimal. Second, and more interestingly, the more the representative citizen cares
about the environment, the more growth-enhancing policies the Ramsey government finds it
optimal to choose. Specifically, the more the citizen cares about the environment, the higher
should be the share of tax revenue allocated to infrastructure vis-à-vis cleanup, the lower the
income tax rate, and the higher the sustainable balanced growth rate. Third, contrary to the
RSBA, in the FBA, the more the citizen cares about the environment, the more environmental
friendly allocation of resources the social planner finds it optimal to choose. The intuition
behind these results is as follows. In a second-best situation where private agents ignore
externalities and policymakers lack lump-sum policy instruments, when private agents care
about the environment, this requires extra revenue for cleanup policy and this can only be
achieved by large tax bases and high growth. Ramsey-type policymakers realize all this and
choose their policy instruments accordingly, in the sense that they give priority to growth. By
contrast, in a first-best situation, the social planner first hits a relatively high growth rate, and in
turn allocates some of the available social resources to the environment, where the degree of
allocation increases with how much we value the environment relative to consumption or other
goods. Therefore, not only there is no tradeoff between economic growth and environmental
quality in the long run, but also only growing economies can afford to improve environmental
quality. This is consistent with the general belief that to fund the governments’ policy goals on
health, redistribution, the environment and the rest, we need tax receipts and this can be
achieved by growth-enhancing policies.2
Dismantling the current economic system would ensure worse pollution and
make a shift to solar power impossible
Martin Lewis professor in the School of the Environment and the Center for International
Studies at Duke University. Green Delusions, 1992 p 7
While such are the fantasies only of the most moonstruck extremists, even moderate radicals (if one may be permitted the
oxymoron) espouse an ideology that would preclude the development of an ecologically sustainable economy. Most
environmentalists, for instance, aver that a
sustainable economy must be based on solar power. Yet the
for total decentralization, deurbanization, economic autarky, a ban on most
forms of high technology, and the complete dismantling of capitalism, would not only prevent future
improvements in solar power but would actually destroy the gains that have already been
made. While most radical greens embrace “appropriate technologies” (just as anti-environmentalists denounce “pollution”),
their program would, if enacted, undercut the foundations of all technological research and
development. Appropriate technology, in fact, often turns out to mean little more than well-engineered medieval apparatuses:
radicals’ agenda, calling
we may expect crude mechanical power from the wind, but certainly not electricity from the sun. Equally important, the systematic
dismantling of large economic organizations in favor of small ones would likely result in a
substantial increase in pollution, since few small-scale firms are able to devise, or afford,
adequate pollution abatement equipment.
US Growth Good - Environment
Economic growth is key to improving the environment
Sean Hackbarth, Communications Advisor for the Senate Republican Conference, 4-29-2007,
“The Environment’s Best Friend: Economic Growth,” The American Mind,
http://www.theamericanmind.com/2007/04/23/the-environments-best-friend-economicgrowth/
Did you know the air was getting cleaner before the first Earth Day in 1970? IndurGoklany
writes, Between 1957 and 1970, particulate matter concentrations in urban areas declined 15
percent, while sulfur dioxide concentrations peaked in 1963, declining 40 percent between 1962
and 1969. Environmental diseases like malaria and typhoid decreased. How could it be that
people decided to improve their environment without a call to action from environmental
groups or government edict? We got richer. As the U.S. improved economically people no
longer had to worry about making enough money to keep from starving and protected from
the weather. With those needs satisfied people could move to satisfying desires that used to
be luxuries. People got tired of smog-filled air, damaged lakes, and species near extinction.
They reached a point where they could afford to protect their environment better. New
technologies were employed to continue economic growth while reducing harm to the planet.
The battle between the environment vs. the economy doesn’t exist. People need to reach a
level of economic prosperity to care about cleaning up the world around them. Economic
growth, then, is key to improving the environment. Free trade, well-defined property rights,
and the rule of law won’t just make the impoverished better off, more healthy, and longerliving. It will give them the resources and desire to improve the environment.
Capitalism and continued growth are the only way to generate the resources
necessary for saving the environment and gaining social equality
Martin Lewis professor in the School of the Environment and the Center for International
Studies at Duke University. Green Delusions, 1992 p 19-20.
As noted above, I believe that only a capitalist economy can generate the resources necessary
for the development of a technologically sophisticated, ecologically sustainable global
economy. In embracing capitalism I do not thereby advocate the laissez-faire approach of the
Republican right. To say that the market plays an essential role is not to say that it should be
given full sway. As Robert Kuttner (1991) persuasively argues, the laissez-faire ideology has
actually placed shackles on the American economy; it has rather been the “social market”
economies, like that of Germany, that have shown the greatest dynamism in the postwar
period. Moreover, if the example of Japan teaches us anything, it should be that economic
success stems rather from “combining free markets and individual initiative with social
organization” (Thurow1985 :6o; emphasis added). At the same time, hard heads must always be
matched with soft hearts (see Blinder 1987); we must never lose sight of social goals when
working for economic efficiency or ecological stability But both social equity and environmental
protection are, I will argue, more easily realized by working through rather than fighting
against the market system and the corporate structure of late twentieth-century capitalism.
Economic growth, environmental protection, and social welfare should be seen as positively
rather than negatively linked; a society that demands strict pollution controls, for example,
will be advantaged in industrial competition at the highest levels of technological
sophistication, as will a society that continually upgrades its human resources by providing
workers with skilled, well-paying jobs (Porter 1990).
US Growth Good – Environment – Tech Solves
Technology fixes can outpace environmental harm
James GustaveSpeth, environmental NGO founder, environmental litigator, former think tank
head, former environmental advisor to Jimmy Carter, former US Agency for International
Development head, 2008 “The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment,
and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability” Yale University Press
A core belief of those who hold that we need not worry about growth per se, because we can
green growth to acceptable levels, is that technological change of an environment-saving sort
can be driven so rapidly that it more than compensates for the additional environmental
stresses growth produces. The well-known “IPAT equation” helps in examining this
proposition.7 I=PAT Environmental Impact=Population x Affluence x Technology This equation
is actually an identity: Impact=Population x (GDP/Population) x (Impact/GDP) or Impact GDP X
(Impact/GDP) where GDP per capita is a measure of affluence and where environ mental impact
per dollar of GDP (or unit of output) is a reflection of the technology deployed in the economy. If
GDP is going up at 3 percent a year, and if one wants to reduce environmental impacts greatly,
then the environmental impacts of each dollar of GDP and each unit of economic output must
decline at rates substantially in excess of 3 percent a year. To reduce environmental impacts
faster than the economy is growing requires rapid technological change. That is why I and many
others have called for policies that promote an environmental revolution in technology—an
urgent ecological modernization of the economy that would include both the transformation
of existing capital stocks and, through innovation and entrepreneurship, the creation of new
environmentally friendly industries, products, and services.8 A major way to reduce pollution
and consumption of natural resources while experiencing economic growth is to bring about a
wholesale transformation in the technologies that today dominate manufacturing, energy,
construction, transportation, and agriculture.The twentieth-century technologies that have
contributed so abundantly to today’s problems should be phased out and replaced with
twenty-first-century technologies designed with environmental sustainability and restoration
in mind. The economy should be “dematerialized” to the fullest possible extent through a new
generation of technologies that sharply reduces the consumption of natural resources and the
generation of residual wastes per unit of economic output.
US Growth Good – Global Warming
US Growth Good – Global Warming
Technological developments and market incentives solve warming better than
curbing growth
William J Baumol, professor of economics at NYU, Robert E. Litan, Senior Fellow of Economic
Studies at the Brookings Institute, and Carl J. Schramm, President and chief executive officer
of the Kauffman Foundation,” 2007, Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of
Growth and Prosperity
The same process of technological advance that undermined Malthus’s dire predictions may
be able to quiet the concerns of the modern-day Malthusians who worry about disappearing
energy, although more active involvement by governments may be necessary to address
concerns about global warming. As some sources of energy are depleted—fossil fuels, in
particular—their prices will rise, setting in motion several developments that will keep
economies from stagnating. For one thing, consumers will cut back on their demand for fossil
fuels directly (taking fewer trips, car- pooling, or even moving closer to work) or indirectly by
buying things (cars, houses, and appliances) that are more energy-efficient. This occurred after
the first postwar “energy crisis” of 1973. Energy use as a percentage of GDP in the United
States has been cut in half largely as a result of higher prices, and it will continue to drop if
fossil fuel prices (adjusted for inflation) rise in the future. Equally important, if prices of fossil
fuels increase, the backers of substitute forms of energy (nuclear power, fusion, geothermal,
biomass, solar, and possibly other sources) will have stronger incentives to perfect their
technologies so that they can be readily used instead.4 As for global warming, there is a
consensus among scientists that the problem is real and growing. Indeed, some scientists
attribute the intense hurricane activity that devastated the Gulf states and parts of Florida
during the 2005 season to warmer waters due to global warming. At the same time, there is an
emerging consensus among economists and policy makers around the world that the best way
to curb the carbon emissions that are contributing to global warming is to employ a mixture of
rules and market- like incentives, perhaps the most promising being the establishment of
ceilings on pollution by allocating suitably restricted limits on unavoidable emissions by
producers and allowing these rights to be traded in markets.Thuspollution can be capped and
growth can nevertheless continue. The “cap and trade” approach, applied globally, was the
linchpin of the Kyoto agreement reached in the late 1990s but not yet implemented (due in
large part to opposition by the United States). Although political and practical problems may
inhibit the adoption of cap and trade on a global scale, it may be feasible on both grounds to
implement the idea on a national basis.5 Those who doubt whether economic growth can
continue if resources are devoted to reducing pollution need only look to the U.S.
experience— where both the air and water are far cleaner today than thirty years ago, even
with a substantially higher production of goods.6 If the same political energy that has so far
fueled the “no growth” or “limits to growth” movements were channeled instead to
persuading governments around the world to accept less socially damaging approaches,
including a tradable emissions permit system, there is good reason to believe global warming
concerns would be much attenuated
US Growth Good – Global Warming
Growth solves warming
Terry L. Anderson, PhD economics, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, adjunct professor
at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, April 29 2004, “Why Economic Growth is Good for
the Environment” http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php
In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
global-warming expert James Hansen notes that greenhouse gas emissions and global-warming
projections are "consistently pessimistic." Hansen suggests that projections do not take into
account the lower carbon dioxide and methane emissions that have resulted from
technological advancements. He explains that the lower carbon dioxide emissions result from
increased energy efficiency following the energy crisis in the 1970s and the lower methane
emissions, from technological changes in agriculture. Hansen's essay concludes on an
optimistic note, saying "the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change
have come into being with remarkable rapidity." This statement would not have surprised
economist Julian Simon. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it
to be best motivated by market forces. Because of a combination of market forces and
technological innovations, we are not running out of natural resources. As a resource becomes
more scarce, prices increase, thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and
technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by
new technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic growth, which
in turn leads to environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to sacrifice
clean water and air, healthy forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their
incomes rise above subsistence, "economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier
years," says economist Bruce Yandle. "If economic growth is good for the environment, policies
that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment." The link between greenhouse gas
emissions and economic prosperity is no different. Using data from the United States, Professor
Robert McCormick finds that "higher GDP reduces total net [greenhouse gas] emissions." He
goes a step further by performing the complex task of estimating net U.S. carbon emissions. This
requires subtracting carbon sequestration (long-term storage of carbon in soil and water) from
carbon emissions. Think of it this way: When you build a house, the wood in it stores carbon. In
a poor country that wood would have been burned to cook supper or to provide heat, thus
releasing carbon into the atmosphere. McCormick shows that economic growth in the United
States has increased carbon sequestration in many ways, including improved methods of
storing waste, increased forest coverage, and greater agricultural productivity that reduces
the acreage of cultivated land. Because rich economies sequester more carbon than poor
ones, stored carbon must be subtracted from emissions to determine an economy's net addition
to greenhouse gas emissions. McCormick's data show that "rich countries take more carbon out
of the air than poorer ones" and that "the growth rate of net carbon emission per person will
soon be negative in the United States." Put differently—richer may well be cooler. Globalwarming policy analysts agree that greenhouse gas regulations such as those proposed at Kyoto
would have negative impacts on the economy. Therefore, as McCormick warns, we should take
great care that regulations in the name of global warming "not kill the goose that lays the
golden eggs."
Slow growth makes people prioritize growth over warming – makes heightened
emissions inevitable.
Richard High, independent planning consultant and member of the RTPI regeneration network,
June 20, 2008, “Striking the right economic balance on consequences of climate change”
SECTION: Pg. 26 Lexis
Political commitment to climate change spending is being tested by the global slowdown and
economists need to fight back with coherent arguments on why the figures add up in the long
term, argues Richard High. After becoming headline news a year or so ago, climate change has
all but vanished from the national media. The credit crunch and the threat of economic
slowdown have distracted attention from a potentially life-threatening issue.
US Growth Good – Heg
US Growth Good - Heg
Economic growth is key to heg—history proves.
Anthony Pietroburgo, Political Scientist, 4-10-2009 http://ezinearticles.com/?The-End-ofAmerican-Hegemony&id=2207395
However we can learn from past hegemonic states, all of which, withered away with time just as
the American one is currently in the process of doing. Great Britain was perhaps the last true
hegemon before that of the United States. Back in 1890 the collapse of their empire had just
began. David A. Lake's research on the issue is work that should be greatly analyzed due to the
illustrious similarities between the British recession in to retirement and the United States' as
well. For much of the 19th century Great Britain was dominating in the same fields as the U.S.
did so in the 1950's through the late 1970's. Soon in the later 1800's The United States and
Germany moved to a protectionist system to plant their economic seeds and soon after were
surpassing British industries and abilities. The industrial base of Great Britain crumbled and
forced them to invest heavily in the service, shipping and insurance sectors of the economy just
to break-even when concerning their balance of payment statistics. For the time being the
British were able to carry on with the pound as the dominant world currency. The frail system
was already on the thinnest of ice, when WWI confounded the weak British economy (Lake
122). At the time of Great Britain's reign of power they also pursued operations to completely
open up and liberalize the world economy. This did lead to substantial brief economic
abundance but eventually the struggles of remaining a strong enough power to be considered
an absolute hegemon wore off. Hegemonic powers are only sustainable during periods of
constant economic growth. When growth is no longer the complete and utter status of the
hegemony's economic functionality the power ceases to be consistent. We see this to be the
case with Great Britain, as other world powers emerged and caught up in terms of economic
status and influence, British power that was exerted was much more explicit and coercive, just
like it was during the American hegemonic era under President Nixon (Lake 121). It is safe to say
that the U.S. is headed down the same path that will eventually end up being the ultimate dethroning of the American empire and it's hegemonic capabilities. If you think back to all the
complications that the United States is experiencing in this very moment concerning obvious
financial difficulties and others in the areas of education, technological innovation and
healthcare respectively. Other nations have clearly started their own catch up phase and are
impeding on American power as we speak. The irony between the situations leading up to the
collapse of the British hegemonic state and the current burdens that are being placed upon a
contemptuous American hegemon are too similar for coincidence. It took the disaster of WWI
to finally destabilize the British hegemon and the United States is one major crisis away from
experiencing the same fate (Bartilow Lecture).
Economic growth is key to hegemony
Michael Hunt, Prof of History at the UNC at Chapel hill, 5-21-2007
http://hnn.us/articles/37486.htm
If in the U.S. case empire is genetic, hegemony is an acquired characteristic. Hegemony was
made possible by a rate of economic growth over the course of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries that had no precedent in human history. This achievement created the
preconditions for a U.S.-inspired, designed, and regulated international system that took
shape during the first two thirds of the twentieth century. American economic and cultural
clout remade societies and reshaped the practices of daily life around the world.
US Growth Good – Poverty
US Growth Good - Poverty
Growth solves poverty.
Financial Mail (South Africa), May 23, 2008 “Think tank makes case for orthodoxy” SECTION:
ECONOMY, BUSINESS & FINANCE; Pg. 14 Lexis
The Growth Report was released this week by the commission on growth & development, an
independent think-tank made up of policymakers (including Manuel), business leaders,
scholars and two Nobel prize-winning economists. It focuses on the need to achieve
sustainable economic growth by analysing the strategies of 13 countries with gross domestic
product growth of more than 5%. Along with debunking the notion that poverty can be
alleviated in the absence of economic growth, the report offers a list of economic ideas that
should be resisted. Some of these include reducing fiscal deficits by cutting infrastructure
expenditure; trying to stem inflation by imposing price controls; and letting the exchange rate
appreciate too quickly.
Growth is key to reducing poverty
William J Baumol, professor of economics at NYU, Robert E. Litan, Senior Fellow of Economic
Studies at the Brookings Institute, and Carl J. Schramm, President and chief executive officer
of the Kauffman Foundation,” 2007, Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of
Growth and Prosperity
Moreover, of particular relevance to the debate about globalization, both India and China have
achieved rapid growth while opening themselves up to the rest of the world: trading more
extensively and accepting more investment from rich countries. Openness to trade and
investment, as we will discuss in later chapters, can be critical to facilitating entrepreneurship
and, hence, growth. For now, it is essential to note only that growth and poverty reduction go
hand in hand (Dollar and Kraay, 2002). Indeed, it is difficult to think of examples of countries
where poverty has declined without economic growth. A rising tide truly does usually lift even
the boats at the bottom. From 1978 to 2000, in particular, while the world population grew by
1.6 billion people, the number of people with incomes below $1 per day.—the lowest
threshold of poverty—declined by more than 300 million (Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 2004, 9). But
even if globalization did worsen inequality (as it may within certain countries, especially because
it often disproportionately benefits the most- educated individuals who have skills or products
to sell in a global marketplace), steps to slow down or reverse economic integration clearly
would reduce growth and very likely lead to lower incomes and average standards of living
around the world.7 A simple thought experiment should demonstrate why. Imagine if residents
in each of the fifty states of the United States were limited to doing business only with other
residents of their states. Is there any serious question that total output, and therefore incomes, in such a “disunited” America would be lower than it is now, with Americans freely able
to buy and sell goods and services, send money to and receive money from, and move to any
part of the “united” states, rather than being limited to conducting business only with
individuals and firms in a single state? Expanding the size of the market in which individuals and
firms can do business enhances prosperity, enabling individuals and firms to specialize in what
they do best, insights contributed more than two hundred years ago by Adam Smith and David
Ricardo. This is just as true for the United States, as it is for other countries throughout the
world.
US Growth Good – Racism
US Growth Good - Racism
Growth prevents racism
William J Baumol, professor of economics at NYU, Robert E. Litan, Senior Fellow of Economic
Studies at the Brookings Institute, and Carl J. Schramm, President and chief executive officer
of the Kauffman Foundation,” 2007, Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of
Growth and Prosperity
As Harvard University economist Ben Friedman has persuasively argued, slow growth, especially
when coupled with widening inequality, can provide the environment that breeds distrust and
often hate (Friedman, It is not an accident, he points out, that some of the worst periods f
intolerance toward African Americans and immigrants in post-Civil War United States history
(the late 1800s, the 1930S, 1970s, and early 1980s) occurred during periods of slow or negative
growth. The worst example of this was, of course, the rise of Nazism in Germany following
World War I, when that country was mired in both hyperinflation and stagnant growth (and
eventually depression). In more recent times—for example, in the last decades of slow growth
and high unemployment— Continental Europe has again flirted with anti-Semitism, while
hosting a strong strain of anti-immigrant sentiment. The reverse is much more likely to be true
for economies that are growing. These have the good fortune to take advantage of a virtuous
cycle, the young can count on a better life, assuming they work hard to .achieve it. Visitors to
India or China or Ireland or Israel, for example, report a vibrancy and sense of excitement that
one doesn’t hear about in Western Europe, at the rich end, or much of Latin America or Africa,
at the lower end of the world income distribution. Growth opens up opportunities, which in
turn unleash not only hope but also the work ethic that helps turn opportunities into reality.
Much of this same energy and optimism can be found in pockets of the United States—in hightechnology clusters in parts of some American cities. The challenge will be to maintain this
combination of energy and hope in coming decades, when the United States also begins to deal
with the many challenges of its retiring baby generation.
US Growth Good – Resource Wars
US Growth Good – AT Resource Wars
No risk of resource shortages—no scenario for their impact
Bjorn Lomborg, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus,
2001, Environmental Conflict, p. 151-152
Often, the discussion of the environment seems similarly to be based on this bleak belief
(extensively discussed and documented in Lomborg, 1998/ 2001). This chapter has focused on
some of the important areas singled out by environmentalist writers to see whether the
environmental stresses indeed are getting worse or not. When looking at the food supply, it is
evident that not only has stress lessened, in that more people are better fed than ever before,
but the evidence also seems to indicate that this trend will continue into the future, making
food even more accessible. Likewise, the threat of erosion is largely based on anecdotal
evidence, and when we look at the best available, global data, it seems that its effect over the
next century will be negligible. When discussing energy and raw materials, there has always
been a tendency to expect a Malthusian exhaustion scenario. However, when we look at the
data for oil, coal, gas, and the four most important raw materials (aluminum, iron, copper, and
zinc), they exhibit increasing years of consumption, despite the enormous increases in annual
consumption and the amounts already consumed. Contrary to common sense, there are good
reasons to expect that these resources will not get more scarce but rather more abundant with
time. Looking at water it is clear that what used to be an essentially free resource now has an
established cost. In this sense, it has become more scarce. But this need not lead to any
significant increase in conflict. Partly, water is by no means a very limited resource and through
the pricing of water, great efficiencies can be achieved at fairly low cost. Partly, since desalination sets a clear upper boundary on the benefits reaped from access to free water, it is
doubtful that water could be a major objective in the acquisition of foreign resources through
war. Finally, the discussion of increasing inequality, at least as based on national data, seems
erroneous. When measuring the purchasing power, inequality has not increased over the last
fifty years—rather, perhaps, we have witnessed a slight decrease. Consequently, although the
discussion of an environmental stresses and their connection to conflict is clearly an important
area of research it is important to realize that on the main issue areas, resources have not been
becoming increasingly scarce but rather more abundant.
US Growth Good – Terrorism
US Growth Good - Terrorism
Economic growth deters terrorism. Prefer our evidence because it’s reverse
causal. Collapse of growth causes violence and civil war.
Thomas Gries, Tim Krieger and Daniel Meierrieks, PhD economist for the Center for
International Economics University of Paderborn, Germany, February 2009 “Causal Linkages
Between Domestic Terrorism and Economic Growth” http://groups.unipaderborn.de/fiwi/RePEc/pdf/wpaper/WP20.pdf
Economic theory argues that terrorists are rational individuals which choose their levels of
violent activity according to the costs and benefits arising from their actions (cf., e.g., Sandler
and Enders, 2004). Because of terrorist’ pre- sumed rationality, the opportunity costs of terror
also matter. Intuitively, low opportunity costs of violence –that is, few prospects of economic
activity –lead to elevated terrorist activity, whereas high opportunity costs result in the opposite (cf., e.g., Freytag et al., 2008). Times of economic success mean, inter alia, more
individual economic opportunities and economic participation. Higher levels of overall growth
should coincide with higher opportunity costs of terror and thus less violence. Conversely, in
periods of economic downturn should be accompanied by fewer economic opportunities and
participation and thus by more economic dissatisfaction. In times of economic crisis, dissidents
are more likely to resort to violence as the opportunity costs of terror are low, while the
potential long-run payo¤s from violence –a redistribution of scarce economic resources which
is to be enforced by means of terrorism – are comparatively high (cf. Blomberg, Hess and
Weerapana, 2004). To some extent, empirical evidence suggests that economic performance
and terrorism are linked along the lines discussed before. The findings of Collier and Hoe- er
(1998) indicate that higher levels of economic development coincide with lower likelihoods of
civil war, providing initial evidence that economic success and conflict are diametrically
opposed.Considering economic development and terrorism, several studies …nd that higher
levels of development are obstacles to the production of transnational terrorism (cf., e.g.,
Santos Bravo and Mendes Dias, 2006; Lai, 2007; Freytag et al., 2008).Blomberg and Hess (2008)
also …nd that higher incomes are a strong deterrence to the genesis of domestic terrorism.
Furthermore, there is evidence connecting solid short-run economic conditions with less
political violence (cf. Muller andWeede, 1990; Freytag et al., 2008).6 In general, the evidence
indicates that terrorism and economic conditions are linked. Here, economic success seems to
impede the genesis of terrorism, presumably due to higher opportunity costs of con‡ict. In other
words, in times of stronger economic performance individuals simply have more to lose.
US Growth Good - Terrorism
Economic growth creates conditions where communities stop terrorism locally
Major Miemie Winn Byrd, Deputy Economic Advisor, U.S. Pacific Command, 2006 “Combating
Terrorism: A Socio-Economic Strategy” http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/4106.pdf
The increased risks and uncertainties of terrorism reduce consumer willingness to spend,
particularly on discretionary items and major consumer durables, thereby reducing investment
in consumer goods industries and depressing growth. The travel, tourism, accom- modation,
restaurant, postal services, and insurance industries are particularly susceptible. Regions and
economies where these industries are concentrated suffer most, both in falling output and
employment, but the threat of terrorism reduces overall investment and retards economic
growth across the board. While uncontained terrorism is costly for all economies, it could
impose a disproportionate cost in trade and income growth in Asia-Pacific countries. Most
developing economies in the region depend heavily on trade flows, particularly with the United
States. Many of these economies rely on foreign direct investment inflows. Insurance companies
may impose higher premiums on cargoes and vessels traveling to and from these countries due
to the inadequacy of local security. For instance, Lloyd’s of London recently increased its
premiums on ships traveling through the Malacca Strait. Currency exchange rate volatility can
devastate the whole region’s economy. A case in point is the Asian financial crisis in 1997,
initiated by a sudden Thai bhatt depreciation. Combating Terrorism New counterterrorism
measures require one-time investments, which lead to short- to mid-term increases in the costs
of doing business. These costs should be viewed as an investment that will pay dividends
through reduced risk premiums and increased trade efficiency. In addition to the advantages of
reducing exposure to terrorism, technological advances that enhance security are likely to
boost the efficiency of cargo handling and people movement, lowering trade costs and making
trade flows more efficient. The benefit of preventing reduced trade flows and encouraging
investment is continued regional and global economic growth. Expansion and prosperity would
enable nations and organizations to fund economic development policies and activities, which
would create opportunities and expand a new middle class in communities that have
traditionally supported terrorist groups. As the population recognizes the economic benefits
of peace, they hopefully will work to inhibit local support for terrorist activities. Sound
economic development policies can be one element to fulfill the 9/11 Commission’s
recommendations of identifying potential terrorist sanctuaries and preventing them from
becoming operational spaces for the actors of terror.1
US Growth Good – US-China War
US Growth Good – US-China War
Growth solves US-China war – economic interdependence
Roger Cohen, International Herald Tribune, December 13, 2006, NYT, Bush’s Distraction in Iraq
Has Led to Stronger U.S.-China Ties
Paulson wants the yuan to rise further against the dollar - more than the 5.7 percent it has
gone up since July 2005. He may or may not get concessions during his visit. In the end, it will
not really matter. China does not to seek major confrontation with Washington; it will
ultimately do what's necessary to avoid that. Stability in its region is what enables China
to focus on maintaining an annual growth rate of close to 10 percent. With China needing to
create an estimated 24 million jobs a year to absorb newcomers to the work force, high
growth is a prerequisite for the endurance of the ruling Communist Party, whose attachment
to power is one of the few nonnegotiable things in the country. So China does not want to
challenge the United States - not now, and probably not for a very long time - because
Beijing benefits economically from Pax Americana. If the American market closes, China
wobbles. If the United States were not an Asian power, China's rise would look a lot more
menacing to countries including Japan, Singapore and Australia. "China welcomes the
American presence in Asia," He Yafei, an assistant foreign minister, said in an interview. "We
welcome the United States to play an important, positive and constructive role in the peace,
stability and economic growth of Asia." There's a school of thought in the United States that
scoffs at such talk. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has been a forceful
proponent of the view that, as the current hegemonic power, America will strive to keep
China down and "behave toward China much the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union
during the Cold War." China, in turn, will follow an Asian Monroe Doctrine and attempt to
push American forces out of Asia. That view misses the way the world has changed since
1989. A degree of interconnectedness exists between the United States and China that
would have been unthinkable between Washington and Moscow. America buys Chinese
goods, China buys American debt: that's the oil greasing the global economy. "Like it or
not, the United States has to accept China's peaceful rise," said JiaQingguo, the associate
dean of Peking University. "The utility of force has declined because we live in a world of
interconnection. China and the United States are not two separate entities. They are
intertwined." Jia continued: "It's very difficult to adopt a policy that is only harmful to the
other side. What U.S. sanctions would not also hurt America's own companies?" Look at the
Chinese today - building bigger and higher in a ramshackle way, constructing bridges, boring
tunnels, doing deals, hustling to get richer, perhaps even rich enough to join the golf club,
thirsting for brand names, going nuts for new movie and Internet stars, opening giant
eateries with TV screens everywhere. They're not Americans, far from it, but they're not alien
to the United States either. Casual, brash, money-minded, they look across the Pacific for
inspiration. Which is not to say thatChina and the United States always see eye to eye or
that tensions will not flare. He, the assistant foreign minister, bristled when it was suggested
to him that China does business with tyrants in places like Myanmar or Zimbabwe. "You're
right in saying that our assistance to these countries has no political conditions or strings
attached and in the future we will continue to do so," He said. "Our assistance to these
countries is based on the interests of the peoples in these countries." Opposition to
interference in the internal affairs of other countries was a core principle of Chinese foreign
policy, He added, explaining, "We ourselves suffered bitterly from aggression and invasion in
the past. We will not do what we ourselves don't like and other peoples don't like either."
Other major powers in history had grown through "colonization and exploitation and
invasion and aggression, but these methods go nowhere in the current world," He said
without ever mentioning Iraq by name. The minister urged the United States to be
"transparent and reasonable" in its strengthened military cooperation with other Asian
countries, including Japan and Australia. "The security concerns of other countries including
China should be taken into consideration," He said. Those concerns, and the existence of a
hard-line Chinese school that sees conflict with the United States as inevitable, explain
China's heavy military spending as it tries to make its armed forces more mobile and
technologically adept. Aggressive, some would say. A reasonable form of hedging would be
a better description. Chinese-American relations have quietly moved beyond the ability of
the yuan's exchange rate or Taiwan tensions or strategic disagreements to bring major
confrontation. There are too many links. A possible deal on North Korea before the end of
the month may well illustrate the new effectiveness of those ties.
No U.S. china war – economic interdependence
James Mulvenon et al. Associate Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation, 2005. RAND,
“China on the Move: A Franco-American Analysis of Emerging Chinese Strategic Policies and
Their Consequences for Transatlantic Relations.”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF199.pdf
Apart from the specific circumstances that suggest value in cooperation with the United
States, the Chinese undoubtedly understand that sustainable growth will both require and
foster growing economic interdependence between China and America. The two
economies are quite complementary: America the source of new technology and insatiable
consumer demand, and China an engine of production with a seemingly inexhaustible labor
supply. True, this growing economic interdependence constrains the United States as well as
China, which might embolden the Chinese to be less compliant. At the same time, awareness
that the United States has an immense economic stake in China might cause the Chinese to
feel that challenging the United States politically and militarily is not only fundamentally
unwise but also fundamentally unnecessary. Opting to expand cooperation with the United
States for the long haul would enable China to avoid a massive military buildup and thus to
concentrate investment on internal development. At the same time, the Chinese can be
expected to continue to expand their military capabilities, especially those relevant to the
United States and Taiwan--their most powerful potential adversary and their most coveted
symbol of national unity, respectively. Military modernization is not incompatible with a
strategy of long-term political cooperation. Indeed, it could be viewed as important both as a
hedge and as a way to avoid having to cooperate from a severely inferior position.
US Growth Good – Space
US Growth Good - Space
Growth makes space travel possible
Nader Elhefnawy, taught at the University of Miami, published widely on space and
international issues, Monday, September 29, 2008, “Economic growth and space development
over the long haul” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1220/1
Nonetheless, even if one should not get carried away by seemingly staggering numbers, the fact
of higher output still means an enlarged range of options. Just as China’s economic growth has
made its new ambitions in space more than just a dream (even if many of its plans have yet to
prove to be realistic), a space project of any given size would seem far more affordable in a
world where global wealth had risen by a factor of two, three, or five.
Space is key to preventing extinction
James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space
Power Theory, http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world
is free from opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our
nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked
upon. The United States can lead, protect, and help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space.
It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people from all over the globe assumes that
role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and conquerors. In his
last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must
venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging
the very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival
as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens
of asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain
undetected. In Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to
establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares humans to the planets that
roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will wander
space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect
of new directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the
exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States
and our allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and
caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of more than our country.