Jump to content
JosephOverman

Best Protectionism Impact?

Recommended Posts

I've been working on a DA that links to protectionism. I'm curious as to what the best impact for that would be. I've already made a shell for both Freedom and Democracy impacts. What is a good terminal impact though? Should I just have trade wars escalating to nuke war? I feel like that's too boring. Plus I want an impact besides nuke war because I'll probably run another DA that already links to nuke war.

 

Also, I want to make sure I understand protectionism. I think of it as policies that "protect" domestic companies. Things the government does to encourage trade within a country, and discourage exports from other countries. Is this correct? Also, are free trade and protectionism opposite things? In other words, could the DA go .... blah blah blah > Plan causes protectionism > free trade key to freedom? Or are free trade and protectionism possible together? I don't know if I understand this fully. Could somebody please help clear it up? Thank you!! :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. Protectionist escalation increases miscalculations in global trade and results in war – boosting exports solve

 

Hufbauer et al., Peterson Institute senior fellow, 2010, (Gary, “US Protectionist Impulses in the Wake of the Great Recessionâ€, March, http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/hufbauer201003.pdf, DOA: 7-12-13)

The U.S. unemployment rate more than doubled between the onset of the Great Recession in¶ December 2007 and December 2009, and is now hovering just below 10 percent (figure 1).¶ 1¶ Considering that this discouraging figure likely understates broader deterioration in the U.S.¶ labor market,¶ 2¶ the absence of sustained Congressional pressure for largeâ€scale protectionist¶ measures, beyond “Buy American†provisions and several smaller companions (all examined in¶ this report), is in some ways surprising.¶ 3¶ At least part of the explanation for the restrained political response is the simultaneous large¶ improvement in the U.S. trade balance during 2008 and early 2009. Figure 1 illustrates how the¶ total U.S. deficit in goods and services trade was nearly cut in half during this period, creating a¶ political obstacle to kneejerk protectionism. As we will elaborate in section IV, during recessions¶ an improving external balance (from imports falling faster than exports) often acts an¶ “automatic international economic stabilizer,†which temporarily fulfills an equivalent¶ economic function to a Keynesian government stimulus package. The “external sector†of the¶ U.S. economy during the early quarters of the Great Recession provided an “automatic offset‶ to sliding U.S. economic activity. This probably caused policymakers to think twice about¶ succumbing to shortâ€term protectionist instincts.¶ However, figure 1 also shows how the improvement in the U.S. trade balance has been only¶ temporary and indeed began to reverse as the U.S. economy exited the Great Recession during¶ the second half of 2009. Crucial for the political threat of protectionism, economic forecasts indicate that the U.S. unemployment rate will probably remain at very high levels over the medium term, despite President Obama’s emphasis on “jobs, jobs, jobs†in his State of the Union Address delivered on January 27th 2010. ¶ A time lag of at least 12 to 18 months probably separates the point at which the U.S. trade¶ balance showed maximum improvement (spring 2009) and the expected drop in measured¶ unemployment well below 10 percent (fall 2010). Absent the “feel good†factor of an improving¶ trade balance, but facing continuing high unemployment levels, protectionist sentiment in the¶ U.S. Congress may increase in the coming months, especially as the November 2010 midterm¶ election draws near.¶ This is particularly so, as current economic forecasts suggest a more robust U.S. economic¶ recovery in the coming years, relative to other industrial trading partners (table 1). A large and¶ growing deficit in the U.S. external balances will likely persist for some time, while the external¶ balances of other major trading partners could hold steady or even improve. If the United¶ States thus returns to its “preâ€crisis role as the world’s importer/consumer of last resort,‶ protectionist impulses in the U.S. Congress are destined to escalate.¶ 5¶ ¶ Fresh U.S. protectionist initiatives, at a time when the U.S. economy is growing at a decent pace,¶ will likely invite inâ€kind retaliation by America’s trading partners, despite the relatively muted¶ reaction to the original “Buy American†provisions in early 2009 and other protectionist measures implemented since then. No longer facing a newlyâ€elected U.S. president, who¶ entered office with considerable global appeal in the midst of an unprecedented economic¶ crisis, foreign leaders are unlikely to give the U.S. an easy pass on future new instances of U.S.¶ protectionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on how you're reading this argument. Is your internal link that global trade collapses, or that the US will be protectionist? If it's the former:

 

Economic interdependence makes the probability of their impacts zero – free trade solves all conflicts that are inevitable with protectionism – empirical studies prove

Hillebrand 10

[Evan E., Professor of Diplomacy at University of Kentucky and a Senior Economist for the Central Intelligence Agency, “Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?†Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, Issue 22010]

A long line of writers from Cruce (1623) to Kant (1797)

AND

for more fractious relations among states and the probability for interstate war rises.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The McDonaldization theory. I've actually never heard this run. I don't know if there is any answer...my guess is there is. However, here is a search for an explanation of the theory. (Because searching for mcdonalization thesis gets you some sociology theory....not globalization good. Actually more like globalization bad.)

 

I would also suggest that going the specific route beyond these two cards might make sense. Not sure the part of free trade you are accessing, however.

 

For instance, US/Europe, US/Asia (china, japan, etc...). This allows you to access the alliance debate....and often have specific quantifications of economic trade--ie we do X billions with Europe.

 

And the protectionism historically lead to world war cards are a dime a dozen. (aka Smoot Hawley act lead to World War) Heres the wikipedia page if you need more context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been working on a DA that links to protectionism. I'm curious as to what the best impact for that would be. I've already made a shell for both Freedom and Democracy impacts. What is a good terminal impact though? Should I just have trade wars escalating to nuke war? I feel like that's too boring. Plus I want an impact besides nuke war because I'll probably run another DA that already links to nuke war.

 

Also, I want to make sure I understand protectionism. I think of it as policies that "protect" domestic companies. Things the government does to encourage trade within a country, and discourage exports from other countries. Is this correct? Also, are free trade and protectionism opposite things? In other words, could the DA go .... blah blah blah > Plan causes protectionism > free trade key to freedom? Or are free trade and protectionism possible together? I don't know if I understand this fully. Could somebody please help clear it up? Thank you!! :)

 

Free trade and protectionism are on opposite ends of the spectrum, so they are mutually exclusive. War is probably your best bet and you can probably find some econ internals. Maybe even heg.

 

Here's a great 2NC impact card for free trade solving war:

 

Trade halves the risk of war; 10,000 trade deals prove

 

Berner et al. 10

“Geopolitics: The Blind Side†UBS research focus; Thomas Berner, analyst, UBS Financial Services Inc.; Dirk Faltin, economist, UBS AG; Stephen Freedman, strategist, UBS Financial Services Inc.; Katherine Klingensmith, analyst, UBS Financial Services Inc.; David Lefkowitz, strategist, UBS Financial Services Inc.; Kurt E. Reiman, strategist, UBS Financial Services Inc.; Joseph Anthony Sawe, strategist, UBS Financial Services Inc.; Jenny Weinkopf, strategist, UBS AG; June 2010 http://www.staticubs.com/us/en/homepage/overlays/usresearchcommentary/_jcr_content/par/columncontrol/col1/linklist/link.1684042367.file/bGluay9wYXRoPS9jb250ZW50L2RhbS91YnMvaG9tZXBhZ2UvY291bnRyaWVzL1Jlc2VhcmNoRm9jdXNfZ2VvcG9saXRpY3NfMTAwNjE1LnBkZg==/ResearchFocus_geopolitics_100615.pdf

According to the “liberal peace†view, trade interdependence deters conflict and promotes peace by generating economic benefits and raising the cost of conflict. The opposing “realist†view states that trade may create conflict by intensifying competition and increasing dependence on strategic goods. A recent paper (Glick and Taylor) provides empirical evidence for the liberal peace view. The authors estimate the likelihood of war between nation pairs based on: The level of their bilateral trade Whether they share land borders Whether they are members of the same alliance Whether one or more is a major power The number of years of peace since the last conflict The results for 9,942 country pairs from 1870 to 1997 show that bilateral trade lowers the probability of war by about 50%. This is good news since globalization has led to a higher degree of trade interconnectedness over the past several decades (see Fig. 1.10). Of course, factors other than trade activity influence the decision to go to war and can even outweigh the importance of trade links between

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The McDonaldization theory. I've actually never heard this run. I don't know if there is any answer...my guess is there is.

 

Search Result #3 from The Guardian: "The Russia-Georgia conflict has finally blown this theory out of the water.

Thomas Friedman, who invented the theory in 1996, said people in McDonald's countries "don't like to fight wars. They like to wait in line for burgers."

The Caucasus conflict shows it's quite possible to do both."

 

Interesting theory though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conrad, Thanks for providing a counterexample (as I was hoping someone would do so)

McDonald's, Date founded: May 15, 1940

 

Not sure how far his theory goes back. But 70+ years of history and one blip seems pretty minimal. Its probably less a law of international politics than a pretty reliable principle or heuristic of international politics.

 

* Technically I should find when they first launched overseas....but I hope this is close enough.

 

I'm sure you could also find a list of alternative causalities for why that occurred--or why the Russian/Geogia struggle is an anamoly of international politics and this theory.

 

Thanks again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah no problem. I'm pretty sure that the persuasive power of McDonaldization could pretty easily beat over the one example too. Never even heard of the theory before now, so thanks to you too ha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathan,

 

“The Dell Theory stipulates: No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.â€

 

This is actually a much more robust claim. I'm not sure how he's verified this, as supply chains are very complex.

 

I'm curious what exactly constitutes a "major global supply chain" according to Friedman (ie presumably # of dollars).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...