U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Economy GoodU.S Econ Key to Global Econ.....................................................................................................................................................................2U.S Econ Key to Global Econ.....................................................................................................................................................................3U.S Econ Key to Global Econ.....................................................................................................................................................................4U.S Econ key to Global Econ......................................................................................................................................................................5

U.S Econ key to Hegemony.........................................................................................................................................................................6U.S Econ key to Hegemony.........................................................................................................................................................................7U.S Econ key to Hegemony.........................................................................................................................................................................8U.S Econ Key to Hegemony-Impact...........................................................................................................................................................9

U.S Econ helps Environment.....................................................................................................................................................................10U.S Econ helps Environment-Impact........................................................................................................................................................11

ANSWERSAT: U.S Econ key to Global Econ.............................................................................................................................................................12AT: U.S Econ key to Hegemony...............................................................................................................................................................13AT: U.S Econ helps Environment.............................................................................................................................................................14

1

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ Key to Global Econ

The U.S is linked to the global economyFederal Reserve 04, the Federal Reserve System on the implementation of Monetary Policy

[http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_4.pdf]

The U.S. economy and the world economy are linked in many ways. Economic developments in this country have a major influence on production, employment, and prices beyond our borders; at the same time, developments abroad significantly affect our economy. The U.S. dollar, which is the currency most used in international transactions, constitutes more than half of other countries’ official foreign exchange reserves. U.S. banks abroad and foreign banks in the United States are important actors in international financial markets.Conversely, economic developments in the United States, including U.S. monetary policy actions, have significant effects on growth and inflation in foreign economies. Although the Federal Reserve’s policy objectives are limited to economic outcomes in the United States, it is mutually beneficial for macroeconomic and financial policy makers in the United States and other countries to maintain a continuous dialogue. This dia logue enables the Federal Reserve to better understand and anticipate influences on the U.S. economy that emanate from abroad.

The U.S economy is key to the global economyDr Estrada, 08, PhD in Economics and Econometrics

[Dr Mario Arturo Ruiz Estrada, “The Economic Waves Effect of the U.S. Economy on the World Economy” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Economic_Waves_Effect_of_the_U_S_Economy_on_the_World_Economy.html]

Initially, we would like to give a short explanation about economic waves. The Economic waves are based on the construction of a large surface plotted in the same graphical space. The large surface is formed by different parts, in our case these different parts represent markets (countries or regions), at the same time, all these markets are connected directly to a single epicenter. This epicenter is fixed by the GDP growth rate of the U.S.In fact, the GDP growth rate of U.S. can experience anytime a dramatic, uncontrolled and non-logical change such as expansion, contraction or stagnation. An abrupt negative fall of the GDP growth rate in the U.S. economy can generate strong damage in different levels at different markets simultaneously. It is originated by the large international trade exchange and investment mobility relationship that different countries or regions keep with U.S. economy.We find that the economic waves willing to evaluate the negative impact on different markets in different levels from a possible deep economic recession from the largest economy of the world such as U.S. To observe the negative effect of a possible deep economic recession and the generation of economic waves, we suggest the application of multi-dimensional graphical modeling is available to simulate the movement of economic waves on live or real time movement under the application of graphical computer animationWe can observe that between 2007/2008, the constant generation of economic waves that strikes different markets around the world. It can be originated from the poor performance of the GDP growth rate of U.S. economy. The generation of economic waves is originated from the strong relationship that exists between the rest of the world and U.S. economy through international trade exchange, FDI mobility and Stock markets integration. The economic waves effect can show clearly how integrated is the world economy under the umbrella of the globalization. Moreover, The negative impact of the slowdown of U.S. economy rests on the last phase of the economic waves, the last phase of the economic waves are identified as the level of unemployment in different markets: Japan, China, ASEAN, EU and Latin America.This paper conclude that day to day the world economy became more vulnerable and sensible to suffer global recession and global inflation, it can be originated by the strong and rapid integration of markets, especially markets are attached to the U.S. economy through international trade exchange by the promotion of free trade areas (FTA), easy and fast mobility of foreign direct investment (FDI) by transnational companies and stock markets integration through sophisticate information communication technologies (ICT). In fact, the high possibility to be affected by Strength economic waves a several number of markets is real and latent anytime. It can be observed when the economic waves arrive to its final phase or last window refraction in the same market (country or region). The last window refraction is located the unemployment growth rate of all markets.

2

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ Key to Global Econ

The U.S is key to the global economy because economic output—not GDPAmadeo, 08, Kimberly publishes WorldMoneyWatch.com. She has 25 years experience in senior-level economic research and business planning

[Kimberly Amadeo, “The Power of the U.S. Economy” http://useconomy.about.com/od/supply/p/Economic_power.htm]

The economic power of the United States is matched by no other countries around the world. Total output for the U.S. economy in 2007 was $13.86 trillion, one fifth of the world's total output. It is also the largest single country economy in the world, although the EU is larger at $14.44 trillion. China is the second largest, at $7.04 trillion and Japan at $4.3 trillion. Please note: these comparisons are made using purchasing power parity. (Source: CIA World Factbook, Rank Order GDP) In fact, the GDP of most countries are the same as many U.S. states. To put these numbers in perspective, check out this map , which shows which country has the same GDP as each state.The power of the U.S. economy is seen in its GDP per capita, which was $46,000 in 2007. Although it is the world's largest economy, the EU's GDP per capita was only $32,900, while Japan's was $33,800. China's GDP per capita was only $5,300 because they have four times the number of people as does the U.S. (Source: CIA World Factbook, Rank Order GDP per Capita) Think of the incredible economic power it takes to both be the largest economy in the world while producing one of the highest standards of living per person. While other countries, such as Norway and Bermuda, have higher GDP per capita, they aren't also a driver of the global economic engine that the U.S. is.

The U.S economy affects all countries around the globeGumbel, 08, NYT Europe editor

[Peter Gumbel, “Global breakdown: Winners and losers” CNN Money, http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/gumbel_world_economy.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008093005]

So much for the theory of "decoupling," the hopeful notion held just a few weeks ago that the rest of the world was robust enough to ride out a U.S. domestic crisis. If the world has learned anything from the American banking meltdown, it is that chaos on Wall Street hits every part of the globe: Witness would-be oligarchs in Russia scrambling to cover margin calls, policyholders in Singapore queued up at offices of American International Assurance (as AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) is known in Asia) to close investment accounts, and - mon Dieu! - a new poll showing three-quarters of the French public, usually unmoved by events on Wall Street, worried that the financial shakeout will hurt them too.Of course, the crisis isn't affecting all countries or even all economic sectors equally, and it isn't clear how this latest case of financial contagion will play out. But here are some early takeaways from around the globe. Financial services are great, until they cause catastrophe. London, long locked in a contest with Manhattan for the title of world financial capital, risks being hit as hard as New York because its economy is just as dependent on financial services. "We're in for a difficult time," says British real estate mogul Vincent Tchenguiz, who predicts a five- to seven-year pullback in his business. A roaring economy isn't a perfect defense, but it sure helps. The stock and bond markets of some of the world's fastest-growing economies have been hit especially hard by the crisis: China's Shanghai Stock Exchange is down 50% this year. The Brazilian bond market has taken a pounding, and, as we've already noted, Russia shuttered its stock exchange altogether.

3

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ Key to Global Econ

Other nations affected by U.S economy—our recession provesNASDAQ, 08 an American stock exchange

[NASDAQ, http://www.nasdaq.com/newscontent/20090102/U.S.-recession-impacting-global-economy.aspx?storyid=18953475]

Various overseas economies are still struggling in the global recession, largely due to less demand for their products in the U.S. and other western nations. This week, Reuters reported that factory production in China, Russia and India has fallen dramatically in recent months. In China, manufacturing has reportedly fallen for five straight months, although last month's pace was somewhat slowed. Factories in India are also said to be cutting jobs, while Russia's manufacturing drop is worse than it experienced during its 1998 financial crisis. Also, South Korea is expecting its weakest growth since the beginning of the decade, while Singapore's economy could shrink up to two percent in 2009.Still, the news isn't completely dismal. The wire service also noted that global stocks were 0.6 percent recently on the MSCI world index, raising the prospect that the economy may have finally turned a corner. "That's not to say there isn't another storm on the horizon, but for the moment the intense pessimism of October and November seems to have eased," Robert Rennie of Westpac was quoted as saying. CNNMoney.com also quoted Tim Crimmin of Lord Abbett as suggesting that "optimism for '09" had helped breathe life into futures markets. Later Friday, observers were expected to get a better glimpse at the state of the U.S. economy with the release of the latest manufacturing numbers.

The world economy is dependent on the U.S economySesit, 07 Sesit is a Bloomberg News columnist

[Michael R. Sesit, “Europe, Asia Won't Weather a U.S. Slowdown” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_sesit&sid=alXkzT5rSN30]

The ability of other countries to emerge from the U.S. economy's long shadow may reflect more wishful thinking than logic. No doubt, it will eventually happen, especially as some of the bigger emerging countries mature. Right now, the world still needs the U.S. consumer. The global economy is too dependent on exports to the U.S., whose trade deficit was $765.3 billion in 2006, while Asia and Europe lack sufficient domestic demand to offset reduced U.S. spending on overseas goods, says Stephen Roach , chief economist at Morgan Stanley in New York. The U.S. accounts for 24 percent of Japan's total exports, 84 percent of Canada's, 86 percent of Mexico's and about 40 percent of China's, he says. Just as China is dependent on the U.S., other countries rely on Asia's second-largest economy. So a U.S. slowdown that hurts China will reverberate in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and commodity producers such as Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Brazil. From 2001 through 2006, the U.S. and China combined contributed an average of 43 percent to global growth, measured on the basis of purchasing-power parity, according to Roach. And there may be more fallout from a U.S. decline. ``Allowing for trade linkages, the total effects could be larger than 60 percent,'' he says. ``Globalization makes decoupling from such a concentrated growth dynamic especially difficult.'' As the U.S. economy faltered in early 2001, many Wall Street gurus predicted that Europe would outpace the U.S. European Vulnerability ``It didn't happen -- a lesson investors should bear in mind today,'' says Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management in New York. Even though only about 8 percent of European exports go to the U.S., Europe is vulnerable to a U.S. slowdown through its businesses abroad. The earnings of European companies' U.S. units plunged 64 percent in 2001, according to Quinlan. Those declines in the biggest and most-profitable market for many German, U.K., French and Dutch enterprises resulted in reduced orders, lower profit, slower job growth and weak business confidence. After expanding 3.9 percent in 2000, euro-area growth shrank to 1.9 percent in 2001, 0.9 percent in 2002 and 0.8 percent in 2003. ``As the U.S. economy decelerates and as the dollar continues its slide, Europe will sink or swim with the U.S. in 2007,'' Quinlan says. Affiliates of European Union companies generate 42 percent of their non-EU earnings in the U.S., he says. If the naysayers are wrong about decoupling and Goldman Sachs is right, the world may even help the U.S. economy through its slowdown, O'Neill says. ``If the U.S. has a massive housing correction, what better time to do it than when the rest of the world can help pick up the slack.'' ``Happy Slowdown'' is his motto. The U.S. will be hoping O'Neill is right.

4

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ key to Global EconThe U.S is important in the global economyTabb ’06 , William K., taught economics at Queens College for many years, and economics, political science, and sociology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York,

[William K Tabb “Trouble, Trouble, Debt, and Bubble”, May 11, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0506tabb.htm]

Importantly, on a global scale, saving and investment rates have both gone down, trends mainly reflecting developments in the industrial countries where both saving and investment have been trending downward since the 1970s even as saving has been increasing in the oil-producing countries and in Asia. The industrial countries still account for 70 percent of world saving, but this is down from 85 percent in 1970. Together, global savings and investment are near historic lows, having fallen markedly since the late 1990s. The even more telling figure is for the rate of growth of the global economy, which has been falling since the 1960s, when it was 5.4 percent to 4.1 percent in the 1970s, to 3.0 percent in the 1980s, to 2.3 percent in the 1990s. While mainstream economists dismiss any idea of a race to the bottom, there is an unquestionable slowing of growth and an emergent underconsumptionist, or rather overaccumulationist, trend. While global growth has slowed, the reach of transnational capital has dramatically increased, and its power to seek out lower costs and play workers in one place against workers elsewhere has grown. What we are seeing is a process of redistributional growth, in which over the ups and downs of the business cycle, capital’s share of the social product is increasing and labor’s share is diminishing. There is a clear thread that connects domestic developments in the U.S. income distribution, debt-funded growth, the increased dominance of the rentier capitalists who profit from these developments, and global ambitions and the projection of imperial dominance. A century ago John A. Hobson argued that as the power of rentiers grows and taxation becomes more dramatically regressive, a hegemonic power (then Great Britain) is tempted to engage in imperialism. Hobson urged higher taxation of incomes generated as a result of financial speculation and government favoritism to produce a more equal distribution of income and higher working-class and middle-income spending, which would encourage domestic investment and make imperialism less attractive. He wrote, The issue in a word, is between external expansion of markets and of territory on the one hand, and internal social and industrial reforms upon the other; between a militant imperialism animated by the lust for quantitative growth as a means by which the governing and possessing classes may retain their monopoly of political power and industrial supremacy, and a peaceful democracy engaged upon the development of its national resources in order to secure for all members the conditions of improved comfort, security, and leisure essential for a worthy national life. (John A. Hobson, “Free Trade and Foreign Policy,” Contemporary Review 64 [1898]: 179, quoted in Leonard Seabrooke, “The Economic Taproot of US Imperialism: The Bush Rentier Shift,” International Politics 41, no. 3 (September 2004): 293–318.

5

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ key to Hegemony

The U.S economy is key to hegemony- countries dependent on U.SHensman and Correggia, 05 Hensman is researcher and writer active in the women's liberation, trade union, and human rights and Correggia is author and reporter in social and environmental issues

[Rohini Hensman and Marinella Correggia, “US DOLLAR HEGEMONY: THE SOFT UNDERBELLY OF EMPIRE (AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO USE IT!” http://www.sacw.net/free/rohini_marinella30012005.html]

What we intend to argue below is that if the US's ability to undertake imperial conquests like that of Iraq depends on its obvious military supremacy, this in turn is ultimately based on the use of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. It is the dominance of the dollar that underpins US financial dominance as a whole as well as the apparently limitless spending power that allows it to keep hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world. Destroy US dollar hegemony, and "Empire" will collapse.The core advantage of the US economy, the source of its financial dominance, is the peculiar role of the US currency. It is because the dollar is the world's reserve currency that the US is able to maintain its twin deficits (fiscal and trade) and depend on the world's generosity. It needs a subsidy of at least 1.2 billion dollars per day to keep up its level of spending. Its military superiority is one reason why it it is unlikely ever to face an embargo, but more importantly, it can continue to live beyond its means because of US dollar hegemony. But for long?The dollar mechanism has been described extensively elsewhere,(3) so we will merely summarize here. The strength of the US economy after World War II enabled the US dollar, backed by gold, to become the world's reserve currency. When the US abandoned the gold standard in 1971, the dollar remained supreme, and its position was further boosted in 1974 when the US came to an agreement with Saudi Arabia that the oil trade would be denominated in dollars.(4) Most countries in the world import oil, and it made sense for them to accumulate dollars in order to guard against oil shocks. Third World countries had even more reason to hoard dollars so as to protect their fragile economies and currencies from sudden collapse. With everyone clamouring for dollars, all the US had to do was print fiat dollars and other countries would accept them in payment for their exports. These dollars then flowed back into the US to be invested in Treasury Bonds and similar instruments, offsetting the outflow.As a reserve currency fulfills world needs in addition to the functions of a domestic currency, the favoured country can build up debt for a protracted period on a scale that would wreck any other country's currency. But this advantage is a double-edged sword.(5) It allowed the US economy to decline unnoticed, its fiscal and trade deficits to climb steeply: by 2004 the US trade deficit had reached $503 billion, the current account deficit $413 billion, the gross national debt around $7 trillion. Globalization destroyed the US as a manufacturing nation; the outsourcing of services means that even this sector is gradually being shifted out of the US.(6) Only its pre-eminence in the global financial services industry remains intact.(7) And this is underpinned by US dollar hegemony. As Pierre Lecomte, a French financial analyst and supporter of the Campaign "Dette et dollar" (to reject the dollar as world currency) says, "While the rest of the world must toil hard to earn dollars which are needed to buy goods internationally, or to pay off foreign debt, the USA just needs to print dollars".(8) And as Frédéric Clairmont wrote in Le Monde Diplomatique (April 2003): "Living on credit is the credo of the foremost power in the world". Various campaigns around the world have asked people to ëboycott Brand America,'(9) but most products with American brand-names are not made in the USA. Therefore refusing to buy such things may reduce royalties to America, but will not seriously undermine US economic power. On the other hand, ëthe longest-lived and most widely seen American "brand" in the rest of the world is almost certainly not Coca-Cola nor McDonalds, but rather the US dollar.'(10) Taking this into account, the secretariat of the international ëBoycott Bush campaign,' based at the Mother Earth association in Belgium, recently asked members if they were ready to open another front, ëto boycott the dollar'. Most of them have responded ëyes'. Dollar hegemony is what concealed the costs of Empire, which were effectively being paid for by the rest of the world, from US citizens. Other countries were compelled to accept fiat dollars because they had no choice. It was the world's only reserve.

6

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ key to Hegemony

U.S economy and innovation is key to global hegemonyDunn & Reifer, 02 professors at University of California, Riverside

[Christopher Chase-Dunn, Thomas Reifer, “US Hegemony and Biotechnology: The geopolitics of new lead technology” http://www.irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows9/irows9.htm]

New lead industries are important as the bases of hegemonic rises because they have huge spin-offs for the national economies in which they first emerge, spurring growth far beyond the original sectors in which they appear, and because they generate “technological rents.” Technological rents are the large profits that return to innovators because they enjoy a monopoly over their inventions. The first firm to invent a calculator that calculated a square root at the press of a key was able to sell that calculator for several hundreds of dollars. Patents, legal protections of monopolies justified by the idea that technological innovation needs to be rewarded, can extend the period in which technological rents may be garnered. But nearly all products eventually follow the “product cycle” in which technological rents are reduced because competing producers enter the market, and profits become reduced to a small percentage of the immediate cost of production. Inputs such as labor costs, raw materials, and transport costs become the major determinants of profitability as a production becomes more standardize and routine (Vernon 1966, 1971). The ability to innovate new products and to stay at the profitable end of the product cycle is one of the most important bases of successful core production in the modern world-system. Products typically move to the semiperiphery or the periphery as production becomes routinized. So the cotton textile industry was a new lead industry in the early nineteenth century, but it spread from the English midlands to other core states and to semiperipheral locations (such as New England), and eventually it moved on to the periphery.Thus the product cycle is important in the reproduction of the core/periphery hierarchy, but it is also important in determining relative competitive advantages within the core. Some core countries are better than others at innovation and implementation of new lead technologies, and it is the ability to concentrate these by means of strategic development of research and development activities, usually including important public investments and coordination of educational institutions and industry, that allows some core countries to do better than others. The United States has had huge advantages over competing core countries since World War II. Because the United States is a continental-sized country with a huge “home market” that is a substantial share of the world economy, it has been rather difficult for contenders to outcompete the U.S. because of reasons of mere size. This said, the U.S. share of world GDP decreased from 1950 to 1992 (see Figure 3). Some of this was due to the increasing share of Japan, and some due to increasing shares of certain countries in the semiperiphery.[1] In about 1992 the U.S. share began again to increase, while the East Asian crisis led the Japanese share to decline. Some observers have attributed this to a reemergence of U.S. economic hegemony based on successes in information technology. Rennstich contends that the United States has cultural and social advantages over Europe and Japan that enable its workers to adapt quickly to technological changes and that these, combined with the huge size of the U.S. domestic market, will serve as the basis for a new “power cycle” of U.S. concentration of economic comparative advantage based on information and biotechnology.

7

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ key to Hegemony

U.S economy has been key global hegemonyDymski, 02 a Professor of Economics at the University of California

[Gary A. Dymski, “Post-Hegemonic U.S. Economic Hegemony: Minskian and Kaleckian Dynamics in the Neoliberal Era” http://economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers02/02-13.pdf]

Until 1971, the U.S. enjoyed global economic hegemony because it underwrote the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates. It was hegemonic in the sense defined by Kindleberger (1973, 1974)—it underwrote the system of fixed exchange rates, and operated as a lender of last resort within that system. After 1971, the U.S. has been a global economic hegemon in the sense defined above, though not in Kindleberger’s sense: it has been a posthegemonic hegemon. This hegemony has rested on the U.S. economy’s importance in global trade, the U.S. dollar’s role as a reserve currency and unit of global exchange, and the dominance of U.S. markets and institutions in global finance. This recent period, an era of great instability and recurrent crashes, has seen a step-by-step global deregulation of financial markets and a relaxation of controls on cross-border capital movements. In this period, global growth has been slower and more unstable; but U.S. military hegemony has, if anything, become stronger. With fewer restrictions on cross-border capital movements, a slower pace of global economic growth, and continued U.S. military power, the U.S. has increasingly been a “safe harbor” magnet for globally mobile wealth. These changes in the character of U.S. global economic hegemony are root cause of changes in the character and timing of U.S. cyclical fluctuations. Today, the U.S. economy has unassailable global power. As noted above, this global power emanates both from the military/political sphere and from the economic sphere, especially due to the preeminence of Wall Street and the “New Economy.” U.S. global dominance is paralleled by weaknesses elsewhere: Latin America had its Lost Decade in the 1980s, while Japan’s economy has been mired in its own Lost Decade of the 1990s; and Europe has stagnated due to the transition in Eastern Europe and the policies implemented to meet European Monetary Union criteria. The two economic bases of U.S. strength have been badly shaken in the recent past. Wall Street has not recovered momentum since the 1998 Russia/Brazil crisis; and in early 2000 the New Economy began a long period of retrenchment. Other problems of the U.S. economy during the 2001 recession—manufacturing slowdown, low household savings, and huge trade deficit—are all linked to the strong dollar. The overvaluation of the dollar thus appears to be the obstacle to correcting this situation (Godley and Izurieta 2001, Krugman2001)..

8

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ Key to Hegemony-Impact

Leadership stops multiple global nuclear wars & a new Dark AgeLIEBER  05   Prof. Gov and Int’l. Affairs @ Georgetown U.

(Robert, “The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century”,  p. 53-54)

 Withdrawal from foreign commitments might seem to be a means of evading hostility toward the United States, but the consequences would almost certainly be harmful both

to regional stability and to U.S. national interests. Although Europe would almost certainly not see the return to competitive balancing among regional powers (i.e., competition and

even military rivalry between France and Germany) of the kind that some realist scholars of international relations have predicted," elsewhere the dangers could increase. In Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would have strong motivation to acquire nuclear weapons – which they have the technological capacity to do quite

quickly. Instability and regional competition could also escalate, not only between India and Pakistan, but also in Southeast Asia

involving Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and possibly the Philippines. Risks in the Middle East would be likely to increase, with regional competition among the

major countries of the Gulf region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq) as well as Egypt, Syria, and Israel. Major regional wars, eventually involving the use of weapons of mass destruction plus human suffering on a vast scale, floods of refugees, economic disruption, and risks to oil supplies are all readily conceivable. 

Based on past experience, the United States would almost certainly be drawn back into these areas, whether to defend friendly states, to cope with a humanitarian catastrophe, or to prevent a hostile power from dominating an entire region. Steven Peter Rosen has thus fit-tingly observed, "If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive."2z Similarly, Niall Ferguson has added that those who dislike American predominance ought to bear in mind that the

alternative may not be a world of competing great powers, but one with no hegemon at all. Ferguson's warning may be hyperbolic, but it hints at the perils that the absence of a dominant power, "apolarity," could bring "an anarchic new Dark Age of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves.

9

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ helps Environment

A strong U.S economy helps the environmentPacific Research Institute 02, San Francisco-based non-profit advocating for personal responsibility and individual liberty in national and state issues

[Pacific Research Institute, “US environment continues to improve, annual Earth Day report finds” http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0502/et0502s4.html]

Environmental quality continues to improve dramatically in the United States, according to the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators 2002, released today by the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute (PRI). Authors Steven Hayward and Julie Majeres show that environmental quality has been improving since the first Earth Day 32 years ago, despite the public perception that it is getting worse. Air quality is improving and is going to continue to improve. Many news stories give the impression that air quality is worsening, and that health problems from air pollution are on the rise. However, since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six “criteria” pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Acts have declined 29 percent, at the same time that the US economy grew 150 percent, auto travel increased by 143 percent, and total US energy consumption (the primary source of air pollution emissions) increased 45 percent. Air quality will continue to improve because of technology, turnover of the auto fleet to lower-polluting engines, and new regulations of public utilities. Economic growth is good for the environment . In the 1970s, many leading environmentalists argued that economic growth was incompatible with a healthy environment. But international data show that the nations with the most robust economies have the best record of environmental protection. Today, a growing number of environmentalists are acknowledging that economic growth is the main prerequisite for an improving environment.

Strong U.S economy is needed for the environmentCarmichael, 4-14-09, reporter for the Huntington Post

[Ben Carmichael, “A Bad Economy Makes for a Bad Environment” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-carmichael/a-bad-economy-makes-for-a_b_186309.html]

As the markets have gone down, long-held assumptions have been thrown up into the air. Economic theories, and not just the value of our homes and our retirement accounts, are coming undone. In some cases, that may just be a good thing. Consider the argument that climate change solutions, no matter what you may think about the science, are simply too costly. This has long been a stock argument of the political right. Indeed, it was one of the publicly stated reasons President George W. Bush chose not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.The logic is fairly simple. Because greenhouse gas emissions are so deeply embedded in our purchases and productivity, people have argued that a strong climate response will require a weakening of our economy. It's been presented as a choice: you can have either a stable climate, or you can have economic growth. Now choose.It is true that carbon is deeply embedded in our processes of production and consumption. For this reason, steps towards de-carbonizing any of the G-20 countries will be expensive. And yet, the declining economy has proven two things about the argument that one must choose between either a robust economy or a vital ecology: it is both politically persistent and demonstrably false. This is not a good sign, for our environment or our politiciansThe lesson, it seems, is that as the economy goes, so goes the environment.This only goes so far, of course. People consume, travel and eat less meat as their affluence declines. By this logic, the recession has actually reduced our impact on the environment. And yet, with fuel cheap and the prospect of climate regulation far away and uncertain, there has been little substantive action of late. Whatever reductions people have made in their habits due to the recession, they remain only part of the much-larger need for a transition to a low-carbon energy infrastructure.Across the landscape of leading, if declining economies, and their climate policies and investments in renewable energy, much the opposite can be said to be true; a stable environment requires a strong economy. As much as the current recession threatens our livelihoods, so too does it threaten our environment.As we talk about a stimulus package, we talk mostly about restoring stability to our homes, our careers and our bank accounts. But let us remember that we're talking about our environment, too. We need a strong economy to make the right investments in renewable energy technologies to make them affordable, scalable and publicly acceptable.Contrary to conventional wisdom, the environment and our economy form one of few potentially positive policy relationships. Let us hope our politicians realize this before its too late.

10

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

U.S Econ helps Environment-Impact

Environmental Collapse causes ExtinctionCAIRNS  04    Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

John Cairns “Future of Life on Earth,” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, www.int-res.com/esepbooks/EB2Pt2.pdf.

 One lesson from the five great global extinctions is that species and ecosystems come and go, but the evolutionary process continues . In short, life forms have a future on Earth, but humankind’s future depends on its stewardship of ecosystems that favor Homo

sapiens. By practicing sustain- ability ethics, humankind can protect and preserve ecosystems that have services favorable to it. Earth has

reached its present state through an estimated 4550 million years and may last for 15000 million more years. The sixth mass extinction, now underway, is unique because humankind is a major contributor to the process. Excessive damage to the ecological life support system will

markedly alter civilization, as it is presently known, and might even result in human extinction. However, if humankind learns to live sustainably, the likelihood of leaving a habitable planet for posterity will dramatically increas e . The 21st century represents a defining moment for humankind—will present generations become good ancestors for their descendants by living sustainably or will they leave a less habitable planet for posterity by continuing to live unsustainably?

11

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

AT: U.S Econ key to Global Econ

Global Economy is at its strongest period-the U.S economy doesn’t have an global impactMcQuillen and Swann 4-05-07, Mcquillen is the Legal Affairs Reporer at Bloomberg News, and Swann is the International economics correspondent at Bloomberg

[William McQuillen and Christopher Swann, “IMF Says Global Economy to Withstand U.S. Slowdown” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arhhIMIyFPeA&refer=home]

By contrast to slowed U.S. growth, the global economy as a whole is in the midst of its strongest period in more than a quarter century, as China logs growth rates above 10 percent and expansions in Japan and Europe pick up steam. The euro region grew the fastest in six years in 2006 and Japan's gross domestic product increased 5.5 percent in the fourth quarter. The fund will release its updated economic forecasts in the first chapter of the World Economic Outlook on April 11, ahead of the spring gathering of the IMF and World Bank in Washington. IMF Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato said in the Hague last week that the fund would probably cut its 2007 U.S. growth estimate from 2.9 percent. The IMF in September predicted world GDP would increase 4.9 percent this year, the fourth straight year above 4.5 percent. That's the best performance since IMF records dating from 1980. In the U.S., the outlook is marred by rising defaults on subprime mortgages, loans made to the riskiest borrowers. Delinquencies rose to a 3 1/2-year high in the fourth quarter as home values fell, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Foreclosures in February jumped 12 percent from a year ago. ``So far, the impact on the rest of the world has been mild,'' Johnson said. At the same time, he warned ``it would be wise to keep in mind we should not dismiss the potential wider impact from specific problems in the U.S. economy.'' About three-quarters of industrial countries suffered the effects of the past five U.S. recessions, according to the analysis by the report's authors -- Thomas Helbling, Peter Berezin, Ayhan Kose, Michael Kumhof, Doug Laxton and Nikola Spatafora. The impact was about half the amount of U.S. deceleration, they said. Unlike past U.S. downturns, the current slowdown wasn't caused by global factors such as rising energy prices, which would have a greater impact on other economies, the IMF said.

US economic downturn will not devastate world economy.Summers 06, Treasury secretary for Obama

[Larry Summers, “Testing all engines,” the economist]

Alongside stronger domestic demand in Europe and Japan, emerging economies are also tipped to remain robust. These economies are popularly perceived as excessively export-dependent, flooding the world with cheap goods, but doing little to boost demand. Yet calculations by Goldman Sachs show that Brazil, Russia, India and China combined have in recent years contributed more to the world’s domestic demand than to its GDP growth. They have chipped in almost as much to global domestic demand as America has. If this picture endures, a moderate slowdown in America need not halt the expansion in the rest of the world. Europe and Japan together account for a bigger slice of global GDP than the United States, so faster growth there will help to keep the global economy flying. A rebalancing of demand away from America to the rest of the world would also help to shrink its huge current account deficit. This all assumes that America’s economy slows, rather than sinks into recession. The world is undoubtedly better placed to cope with a slowdown in the United States than it was a few years ago. That said, in those same few years America’s imbalances have become larger, with the risk that the eventual correction will be more painful. A deep downturn in America would be felt all around the globe.

12

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

AT: U.S Econ key to Hegemony

U.S hegemony will inevitably collapse – China provesWatson, 08, reporter for International Relations

[Jake Watson, “China: The Greatest Threat to US Hegemony” http://newsflavor.com/politics/international-relations/china-the-greatest-threat-to-us-hegemony/]

In the next twenty-five years, the United States will see China become its biggest threat to hegemony.  The US currently dominates the world’s political, military, and cultural scene.  This dominance is known as hegemony.  The economic relationship between the US and China, the global energy crisis , and the increase in Chinese soft power will lead to the decline of US hegemony. China has become one of the globe’s largest economic powers.  Economic growth has depended on Chinese exports to the US.  Without American consumers, the Chinese economy would not be as powerful, and the economic relationship between the two countries would not be interdependent.   Eventually, the Chinese middle-class will grow large enough to end their reliance on exports to the US.   When this happens, Chinese ownership of American debt could be used as political leverage .  Now, China needs American markets and the US needs Chinese capital.   The US will lose power as soon as the economic balance inevitably tips in China’s favor.The global energy crisis creates competition between the US and China.   Competition for fossil fuels will decrease American influence in the world.   China will soon pass the US for the lead consumer of fossil fuels .   As China needs and gains more energy resources, their technological and military prowess will approach that of the US.  Chinese influence will expand as fuel imports increase.  Any expansion of Chinese influence negatively affects the US.  As the competition between the US and China grows, US hegemony is decreased.An increase in exports, global political participation, and culture projection will help China gain influence in the international community.  Trade agreements between China and other countries increase China’s legitimacy and reputation in the capitalist world.  China continues to increase its participation in international organizations and multi-lateral agreements.  As Chinese culture is projected to the rest of the world, influence abroad is gained.  Influence across the globe will give China soft power.   Soft power is non-military influence exerted on foreign nations.   As China gains soft power, American influence and power is decreased.Any power the Chinese gain is power lost by the US.  The US will undoubtedly remain powerful in the international community for many more years.  However, Chinese economic growth, acquisition of energy resources, and soft power projection will give China more influence and take away from US global dominance.  Unless the situation changes or the US takes action to hinder Chinese expansion, Americans may soon see a world controlled by more than one great power.

13

U.S Economy Good EMORYENDI 4-Week Snyder

AT: U.S Econ helps Environment

A poor U.S economy helps the environmentJohnson, 4-06-09 a reporter for the Wall Street Journal

[Keith Johnson “Bad Economy, Good Environment: Slump Helps U.S. Cut Emissions” http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/04/06/bad-economy-good-environment-slump-helps-us-cut-emissions/]

The economic downturn may be complicating President Obama’s hopes of passing climate change legislation, but it appears to be doing wonders for efforts to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. A report issued Monday by the Washington-based Environmental Integrity Project says that because of the recent economic slowdown and milder-than-usual weather, carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants dropped 3.1 percent in 2008, a departure from the recent trends in power plant carbon dioxide emissions, which have risen 0.9 percent since 2003, and 4.5 percent since 1998, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency.This obviously isn’t the kind of news that the Obama administration probably wants to tout. It also echoes arguments that emissions-reductions and economic lethargy are synonymous. That’s been the case in Europe, for instance, and in individual industries such as commercial aviation.But it does raise a substantive question: Should the U.S. should seek even more aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than previously called for? After all, some environmental groups say, the economic downturn and the recently passed economic stimulus package–which includes provisions to boost low-carbon technologies–should make it easier to meet emission-reduction targets.Mr. Obama’s emission-reduction targets call for reducing U.S. emissions about 14% below 2005 levels by 2020. The draft energy and climate bill in the House goes further, mandating a 20% reduction by 2020.For now, those arguments don’t appear to be swaying many minds within the administration, although Mr. Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, told The Wall Street Journal in an interview last week that “it’s a very good question.”“One would assume that with economic activity lower in the world, that has probably had a temporary downward effect on emissions, but I’d underscore the word ‘temporary,’” Mr. Stern said. “The economy is going to get going again. We don’t know exactly when, but it’s not going to be years and years of a slowdown.”

Bad economy helps the environment – Cuts CO2 emissionsWatson, 4/8/2009, reporter for USA Today

[Traci Watson, “Bad economy helps cut CO2 emissions” http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-04-08-climate_N.htm]

The worldwide economic slowdown is having an unexpected positive impact in the fight against global warming: Emissions of carbon dioxide are falling, records collected by governments show. From the United States to Europe to China, the global economic crisis has forced offices to close and factories to cut back. That means less use of fossil fuels such as coal to make energy. Fossil-fuel burning, which creates carbon dioxide, is the primary human contributor to global warming.A recession-driven drop in emissions "is good for the environment," says Emilie Mazzacurati of Point Carbon, an energy research company. "In the long term, that's not how we want to reduce emissions."As carbon dioxide builds in the atmosphere, it traps heat and warms the Earth. The result: melting glaciers, rising seas and fiercer droughts.The lower emissions are caused partly by milder weather — which means less energy is needed for cooling and heating — and by policies that promote energy efficiency, but experts agree that economic problems play a role.The emission decreases are unusual and in some cases unprecedented:Carbon dioxide from U.S. power plants fell roughly 3% from 2007 to 2008, according to preliminary data from the Environmental Protection Agency analyzed by the Environmental Integrity Project. That's the biggest drop since 1995-1996, the first two consecutive years for which data are publicly available.Carbon dioxide from industrial facilities in 27 European nations in 2008 plummeted 6%, according to Point Carbon's analysis of data published last week by the European Commission. Electricity production by Chinese power plants has been lower every month since September compared with the same months a year earlier, says Richard Morse, a Stanford University energy researcher. A drop in power generation translates to a drop in carbon-dioxide output. These are the first such drops in Chinese power production since the Chinese economic boom in the 1990s.European nations face a 2012 deadline to cut their emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, a global-warming treaty written in 1997 and renounced by President George W. Bush in 2001. The recession could make it easier for countries to meet their goals, says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, but "I wouldn't recommend recession as a way to deal with this problem." Some experts fear lower emissions may make companies and governments less likely to spend money to cut carbon output. "There's a risk that it will push back needed investment into … cleaner production," Mazzacurati says.

14