Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive i

We strongly affirm today's resolution: Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States. For clarity, the following words are defined. "Has had" is in the past tense; therefore any impacts in this round must already have happened. According to the University of Michigan, the rise of BRIC began in the 21st century, so any impacts in this round must have happened between the year 2000 and now. The resolution proposes a net beneficial scale, so if the rise of BRIC has more benefits than harms, then the pro team should win this round. Our first contention is that trade with BRIC has reaped the United States considerable savings. Robert Krol, professor at California State University at Northridge reports that trade "has benefited the United States and its trading partners considerably. The benefits include a higher standard of living, lower prices for consumers, improved efficiency in production and a greater variety of goods." The competition from trade lowers prices for consumers, so importing save money for consumers. According to Subhash Chandra Jain, the United States has have $600 billion from China alone due to its cheap imports. According to the Cato Institute, Americans have saved $300 billion from other countries. The four BRIC countries have made up a grand total of 16% of total U.S. trade in 2008. Clearly, because BRIC saves us over $600 billion, the BRIC countries play a significant role in maintaining economic stability in the US. Our second contention is that American companies have profited off BRIC demand. Already, emerging markets have made the difference between life and death for some of the most famous names in the industry. GM's survival would be in even greater doubt without the meteoric growth it is seeing in China. Thanks in large part to the BRICs, a record 65% of GM's sales in the first quarter were outside America. Because of sales in BRIC nations, American auto companies have made $36 billion. BRIC has also helped companies like HP. According to Mark Hurd, CEO and president of HP, China is becoming a key market for HP, Hurd said. HP recorded a 100 percent growth in China, making it the group's third-largest market. Overall revenue in the emerging BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) markets grew 37 percent, Hurd said. BRIC has increased their revenue to $10 billion. It is because of their massive consumer demand that BRIC is already mitigating the global recession. Jim O'Neill, Chief Economist of Goldman Sachs and the person who came up with the BRIC acronym, explains "The Chinese shopper alone is contributing more to global GDP than the infamous US shopper […] There are 2.8 billion of them... and they are ‘poised to spend more.'" He adds, "the BRIC consumer is going to rescue the world." Our third contention is that outsourcing is actually good for the United States. Ben Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve states that outsourcing is not the main cause of job loss. "Outsourcing abroad simply cannot account for much of the recent weakness in the U.S. labor market and does not appear likely to be an important restraint to further recovery in employment." Outsourcing actually creates US jobs. According to MSN Money, because outsourcing saves money for companies, these saving have created 90,000 new jobs in 2003, with more than one in 10 of them in Silicon Valley or elsewhere in California, researchers said. The report predicts that […] outsourcing will create 317,000 jobs -- 34,000 in California. Furthermore, outsourcing dramatically cuts costs for companies. According to MSN Money, outsourcing saves 10% to 20% of costs for both small and big businesses alike. By outsourcing it is predicted that US banks, financial services and insurance companies saved an estimated $300 billion in the past six years owing to IT outsourcing to India. When America saved $6 billion in the last few years, it added 125,000 new jobs in this period thus preventing layoffs. When you look at the big picture, according to economist Martin N. Baily, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, on balance, the U.S. economy gains $1.12 to $1.14 for every $1 invested in outsourcing. Catherine Mann of the Institute for International Economics also conservatively estimates that the globalization of IT production has boosted U.S. GDP by $230 billion over the past seven years. It is because outsourcing has given us more jobs, has saved us $300 billion, and boosted our GDP by $230 billion that outsourcing is actually good for the United States. Due to the positive economic impacts of BRIC, you should vote for the affirmative in today's debate.