Resolved: that, on balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the US

I will begin by addressing my opponent's arguments, and I will then move into my own arguments. My opponent first contested that "Despite the rise of the BRIC countries, the USA is still the best economically. " I do not refute this, but it is nevertheless irrelevant. While the USA does still have the best economy of all these nations, this fact does not serve as evidence that any of the BRIC countries have had a positive impact on the US or its economy. My opponent then went on to discuss the financial leverage that the US holds over these countries because of an economic bind. However, it is important to remember how much financial leverage these countries have over the United States. According to the US Department of the Treasury, as of November 2008, $3085.9 billion of the national debt was held by foreign countries. This includes $681.9 billion to mainland China, $129.6 billion to Brazil, $78.1 billion to Russia, and $16.2 billion to India (. http://www.treas.gov...). These holdings give these countries immense leverage over the US, and as their economies continue to grow, the amount of debt owed to them by the US also increases, as the US continues to increase its national debt. This gives these nations tremendous leverage over the United States, for if they were to pull out of this relationship they have with the US, it would create a tremendous credit crisis, which would be severely detrimental to the U. S. economy. My opponent has contended that these nations are the destinations for a large number of American exports. This may be true, but the fact still remains that the U. S. was operating in a $40.4 billion trade deficit, as of November 2008 (. http://www.census.gov...), which means that $40.4 billion greater worth of goods and services are imported than exported. Thus, while the U. S. may send a relatively large number of exports to these countries, the level of imports coming back from them is exponentially greater. This increases the trade deficit thus lowering GDP. My opponent next goes on to argue that "the countries of the BRIC aren't seen as a threat to the U. S. economy. " This statement is completely subjective and its validity would depend on the source it comes from. Certainly, domestic labor unions would not agree with this statement because growing foreign economies threaten U. S. jobs. My opponent next references the stuggling US automakers, claiming that a growing foreign demand for cars will help these companies to recover. This is not true. Despite a growing foreign demand for cars, it is the foreign automakers that are dominating the world market, including the market here in the US. One of the main reasons for the struggling US automakers is that they have been unable to keep pace with foreign competition. Thus, the foreign market is actually more of a threat, than a help, to the U. S. automakers. Also, this increasing foreign demand for cars also creates an immensely increased foreign demand for oil. As foreign countries continue to industrialize, their demand for oil approaches the level demanded by the US. This will drive oil prices up, meaning gasoline will become increasingly expensive here in the US, while increasingly scarce worldwide. My opponent's last argument claims that "The countries of the BRIC are committed to environmental issues. " My opponent makes reference to the "incoming climate change" and how "we need everyone to help with ending pollution. " While it may very well be true that these countries are environmentally-friendly, it is unavoidable that their pollution output will continually increase as they grow further industrialized. Thus, while these countries may make efforts to minimize their pollution, this output of pollution will nevertheless increase as these countries grow; in other words, these efforts to reduce pollution do not have an ultimately positive impact on the US, given that pollution levels will still increase. Now, onto my arguments. 1) One of the major problems facing the average American citizen today is job loss. As companies look to cut costs, they continue to look to foreign labor. As these foreign economies continue to grow, the US loses more and more jobs to foreign competition as domestic companies move their factories overseas, looking for reduced costs. 2) Newly created domestic industries, as well as struggling domestic industries, have less of a chance of survival because foreign competition has such lower costs. This competition means we will see fewer and fewer new industries developing in the United States. 3) Dumping becomes a factor as these countries import their goods to the United States. As has been suspected recently with China, these countries are continually growing, but in turn often undervalue their currency. US industries are unable to compete with these imports, because they are able to be sold cheaper than it actually costs to produce the product overseas. 4) All of these factors combine to lower the overall GDP. As imports from these foreign countries increase, GDP is lowered. Also, as more and more US companies move overseas, there is less business investment in the US. This lowers GDP. 5) The US is unable to diversify its economy. As foreign economies expand and begin to dominate many of the markets for goods and servces, the US is unable to diversify what it produces. Right now, the majority of US exports come from agriculture and computer technologies. The market for agriculture is unreliable because changes in weather patterns and such can have dramatic repercussions on agricultural output. Computer technology is relatively expensive, with fairly elastic demand. This means that computer technology has a relatively low demand throughout the world. Because the market for most cheaper products is dominated by foreign competition, the US is left with these as its main output. This lacks diversity, which also does not benefit GDP. I look forward to my opponent's response, and more challenges in the upcoming rounds.