Cites for Zach

Kinkaid

1NC
The plan is SEEPED in the idea of auto-mobility that only EXPANDS neoliberal capital Mobiltiy is Not liberating but simply reintrenches squo power structures.
Bonham 06 (Jennifer, lecturer in Geographical and Environmental Studies at the University of Adelaide,Part Two Governing Automobility:
Transport: disciplining the body that travels,9/18/06, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00637.x/full The Sociological Review, 54: 5574. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00637.x) This chapter locates the proliferation of automobile usage within a broader study of how urban populations have been incited to think about and conduct their journeys. The approach I have taken draws on the insights of Michel Foucaults genealogical studies (Foucau lt, 1977; 1978) as it examines the micro techniques by which bodies have been disciplined to the use of public space and the practice of travel. Discipline, to paraphrase Foucault, . . . centres

on the body as a machine, optimizing its capabilities, increasing its usefulness and docility, integrating it into systems of efficient and economic controls (Foucault, 1978: 139). The body of the traveller motorist, pedestrian, child is not a natural body but a body worked upon through relations of power and knowledge to conduct the journey in particular ways . It is argued in this chapter that disciplining the travelling body has been essential to the government of urban mobility. Bodies have been disciplined to and subsequently governed through two interrelated ways of thinking about mobility . First, changes in travel technologies have been linked, both positively and negatively to freedom, as individuals are able physically to remove themselves from their daily routines, everyday responsibilities and immediate social networks (Kern, 1982: 1114; Creswell, 1997). The second way of thinking about travel is that of transport:
movement from one point to another in order to participate in the activities at the trip destination (Schumer, 1955; Hensher, 1976; Allan et al., 1996). This innovation, more significant than the train, tram or automobile,

has made it possible to objectify travel

practices and create knowledge about the efficient completion of the journey . The production of transport knowledge has involved separating out, classifying, and ordering travel practices in relation to their efficiency. This ordering of travel establishes a hierarchy which not only values some travel practices (rapid, direct, uninterrupted) and some travellers (fast, orderly, single-purpose) over others but also enables their prioritization in public space. All trips, not just those to sites of production, consumption, and exchange, can be made economically.
The journey to a friends house, the beach, or the doctor (so called social journeys) can be made with greater or lesser economy. As transport experts (from engineers and transport modellers to sociologists, environmentalists, and feminists) deploy the logic of the economical journey they are fundamentally implicated in the ordering of urban travel and the consequent prioritization of some travellers specifically motorists over others. The

conceptualization of urban travel as transport has rendered urban movement calculable while at the same time ameliorating the dangers of too much freedom to move. Travel has been made manageable
as it has been anchored between an origin and destination. Freedom

of movement has been re-

conceptualized through traffic and transport discourses into freedom to access destinations . Thinking about urban travel in terms of transport has made it possible to govern the movement of urban populations, to maximize choice and to secure the economical operation of the urban environment. The motor vehicle is centred in transport discourse as maximizing travel choice while the motorists field of action can be structured toward the efficient conduct of the journey.

Perticular demands re-ify the hold of capital

Zizek 02 Slavoj Zizek, married to a hottie, Revolution at the Gates, pg 296-302
So the struggle ahead has no guaranteed outcome it will confront us with an unprecedented need to act, since it will concern not only a new mode of production, but a radical rupture in what it means to be a human being.'85 Today, we can already discern the signs of a kind of general unease recall the series of

protests usually listed under the name "Seattle". The ten-year honeymoon of triumphant global
capitalism is over; the long-overdue "seven-year itch" is here witness the panicky reactions of the mass media, which, from Time magazine to CNN, started all of a sudden to warn us about the Marxists manipulating the crowd of "honest" protesters. The problem now is the strictly Leninist one: how do we actualize the media's accusations? How do we invent the organizational structure which will

confer on this unrest the form of the universal political demand? Otherwise, the momentum will be lost, and all that will remain will be marginal disturbances , perhaps organized like a new Greenpeace, with a certain efficiency, but also strictly limited goals, marketing
strategy, and so on. In short, without the form of the Party, the movement remains caught in the vicious cycle of "resistance", one of the big catchwords of "postmodern" politics, which likes to oppose "good" resistance to power to a "bad" revolutionary takeover of power the last thing we want is the domestication of anti-globalization into just another "site of resistance" against capitalism. As a result, the key "Leninist" lesson today is: politics without the organizational form of the Party is politics without politics, so the answer to those who want just the (quite adequately named) " New Social Movements" is the same as the Jacobins' answer to the Girondin compromisers: "You want revolution without a revolution!" Today's dilemma is that there are two ways open for sociopolitical engagement: either play the game of the system, engage in the "long march through the institutions", or become active in new social movements, from feminism through ecology to anti-racism. And, again, the limit of these movements is that they are not political in the sense of the Universal Singular: they are

"single-issue movements" which lack the dimension of universality that is to say, they do not relate to the social totality. Against Post-politics In "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right", Marx deploys something like the logic of hegemony: at
the climax of revolutionary enthusiasm, a "universal class" emerges, that is, some particular class imposes itself as universal, and thereby engenders global enthusiasm, since it stands for society as such against the ancien regime, antisocial crime as such (like the bourgeoisie in the French Revolution). What then follows is the disillusion so sarcastically described by Marx: the day after, the gap between the Universal and the Particular becomes visible again; capitalist vulgar profit emerges as the actuality of universal freedom, and so on.'86 For Marx, of course, the only universal class whose singularity (exclusion from the society of property) guarantees its actual universality is the proletariat. This is what Ernesto Laclau rejects in his version of the logic of hegemony: for Laclau, the short circuit between the Universal and the Particular is always illusory, temporary, a kind of "transcendental paralogism".'87 However, is Marx's proletariat really the negative of positive full essential humanity, or "only" the gap of universality as such, irrecoverable in any positivity?188 In Alain Badiou's terms, the proletariat is not another particular class, but a singularity of the social structure and, as such, the universal class, the non-class among the classes. What is crucial here is the properly temporaldialectical tension between the Universal and the Particular. When Marx says that in Germany, because of the compromised pettiness of the bourgeoisie, it is too late for partial bourgeois emancipation, and that for this reason, in Germany, the condition of every particular emancipation is universal emancipation, one way to read this is to see in it the assertion of the universal "normal" paradigm and its exception: in the "normal" case, partial (false) bourgeois emancipation will be followed by universal emancipation through the proletarian revolution; while in Germany, the "normal" order gets mixed up. There is, however, another, much more radical

. The dimension of universality- thus emerges (only) where the "normal" order that links the succession of particulars is disrupted. For this reason, there is no "normal" revolution; each revolutionary explosion is grounded in an exception, in a short circuit of "too late" and "too early ".
way to read it: the very German exception, the German bourgeoisie's inability to achieve partial emancipation, opens up the space for a possible universal emancipation
The French Revolution occurred because France was not able to follow the "normal" English path of capitalist development; the very "normal" English path resulted in the "unnatural" division of labour between the capitalists, who held socioeconomic power, and the aristocracy, which was left with political power. And, according to Marx, this was how Germany produced the ultimate revolution in thought (German Idealism as the philosophical counterpart of the French Revolution): precisely because it lacked a political revolution. The structural necessity of this non-contemporaneity, of this discrepancy, is what gets lost in Habermas: the basic point of his notion of "modernity as an unfinished project" is that the project of modernity contained two facets: the development of "instrumental reason" (scientific-technological manipulation and domination of nature) and the emergence of intersubjective communication free of constraints; hitherto, only the first facet has been fully deployed, and our task is to bring the project of modernity to completion by actualizing the potential of the second facet. What, however, if this discrepancy is structural? What if we cannot simply supplement instrumental Reason with communicational Reason, since the primacy of instrumental Reason is constitutive of modern Reason as such? Habermas is fully consistent in applying the same logic to today's globalization his thesis is that of "globalization as an unfinished project": The discrepancy between progressive economic integration and the political integration which lags behind can be overcome only through a politics which aims at constructing a higher-level capacity of political acting which would be able to keep pace with deregulated markets.'89 In short, there is no need t o fight capitalist globalization directly we need only to supplement it with an adequate political globalization (a stronger central political body in Strasbourg; the imposition of pan-European social legislation, etc.). However, what if, again, modern capitalism, which generates economic globalization, cannot simply be supplemented by political globalization? What if such an extension of globalization to the political project forced us radically to redefine the contours of economic globalization itself?19') In short, Habermas's basic attitude is nothing less than a disavowal of the twentieth-century he acts as if the twentieth century, in its specific dimension, did not take place: as if what happened in it were basically just contingent detours, so that the underlying conceptual narrative that of enlightened democratic liberalism, with its indefinite progress can be told without them.191 Along the same lines, in order to characterize the demise of the Socialist regimes in 1990, Habermas coined the term "catch-up revolution":192 the West (Western liberal democracy) has nothing to learn from the Eastern European Communist experience, since in 1990, these countries simply caught up with the social development of the Western liberal-democratic regimes. Habermas thereby writes off this experience as simply accidental, denying any fundamental structural relationship between Western democracy and the rise of "totalitarianism" any notion that "totalitarianism" is a symptom of the inner tensions of the democratic project itself. The same goes for Habermas's treatment of Fascism: against Adorno's and Horkheimer's notion of Fascist "barbarism" as the ineluctable outcome of the "dialectic of Enlightenment", the Fascist regimes are for him a contingent detour (delay, regression) which does not affect the basic logic of modernization and Enlightenment. The task is thus simply to abolish this detour, not to rethink the Enlightenment project itself. This victory over "totalitarianism", however, is a Pyrrhic one: what Habermas needs here is a Hitchcockian lesson (remember Hitchcock's claim that a film is only as interesting as its main evil character). Dismissing the "totalitarian" deadlock as a mere contingent detour leaves us with a comfortable, but ultimately impotent, position of someone who, unperturbed by the catastrophes around him, clings to the basic rationality of the universe. The promise of the "Seattle" movement lies in t he fact that it is the very opposite of its usual media designation (the "anti-globalization protest"): it is the first kernel of a new global movement, global with regard to its content (it aims at a global confrontation with today's capitalism) as well as its form (it is a global movement, a mobile international network ready to intervene anywhere from Seattle to Prague). It is more global than "global capitalism", since it brings into the game its victims that is, those who are excluded from capitalist globalization, as well as those who are included in a way which reduces them to proletarian misery.'93 Perhaps I should take the risk here of applying Hegel's old distinction between "abstract" and "concrete" universality: capitalist globalization is "abstract", focused on the speculative movement of Capital; whereas the "Seattle" movement stands for "concrete universality", both for the totality of global capitalism and for its excluded dark side. The reality of capitalist globalization is best exemplified by the victory in June 2001 of the Russian nuclear lobby, which forced the parliament's decision that Russia would import nuclear waste from developed Western countries

. Here, Lenin's reproach to

liberals is crucial: they merely exploit the working classes' discontent to strengthen their position vis-a-vis the conservatives, instead of identifying with it to the end.'" Is this not also true of today's Left liberals? They like to evoke racism, ecology, workers' grievances, and so on, to score points over the conservatives without endangering the system. Remember how, in Seattle, Bill Clinton himself deftly referred to the protesters on the streets outside, reminding the assembled leaders inside the guarded palaces that they should listen to the demonstrators' message (the message which, of course, Clinton interpreted, depriving it of its subversive sting,
which he attributed to the dangerous extremists introducing chaos and violence into the majority of peaceful protesters). This Clintonesque stance later developed into an elaborate "carrot-and stick" strategy of

containment: on the one hand, paranoia (the notion that there is a dark Marxist plot lurking behind it); on the other hand, in Genoa, none other than Berlusconi provided food and shelter for the anti-globalization demonstrators on condition that they "behaved properly", and did not disturb the official event. It is the same with all New Social Movements, up to the Zapatistas in Chiapas: establishment is always ready to "listen to their demands", depriving them of their proper political sting. The system is by definition ecumenical, open, tolerant, ready to "listen" to all even if you insist on your demands, they are deprived of their universal political sting by the very form of negotiation.
The true Third Way we have to look for is this third way between institutionalized parliamentary politics and the New Social Movements. As a sign of this emerging uneasiness and need for a true Third Way, it is interesting to see how, in a recent interview, even a conservative liberal like John le Carre had to admit that, as a consequence of the "love affair between Thatcher and Reagan" in most of the developed Western countries, and especially in the United Kingdom, "the social infrastructure has practically stopped working"; this then leads him to make a direct plea for, at least, "re-nationalizing the railways and water.95 We are in fact approaching a state in which (selective) private affluence is accompanied by a global (ecolo gical, infrastructural) degradation which will soon start to affect us all: the quality of water is not a problem confined to the UK a recent survey showed that the entire reservoir from which the Los Angeles area gets its water is already so polluted by man-made toxic chemicals that it will soon be impossible to make it drinkable even through the use of the most advanced filters. Le Carre expressed his fury at Blair for accepting the basic Thatcherite co-ordinates in very precise terms: "I thought last time, in 1997, that he was lying when he denied he was a socialist. The worst thing I can say about him is that he was telling the truth." "More precisely, even if, in 1997, Blair was "subjectively" lying, even if his secret agenda was to save whatever can be salvaged of the socialist agenda he was "objectively" telling the truth: his (eventual) subjective socialist conviction was a self-deception, an illusion which enabled him to fulfill his "objective" role, that of completing the Thatcherite "revolution". How, then, are we to respond to the eternal dilemma of the radical Left: should we strategically support centre-Left figures like Bill Clinton against the conservatives, or should we adopt the stance of "It doesn't matter, we shouldn't get involved in these fights in a way, it's even better if the Right is directly in power, since, in this way, it will be easier for the people to see the truth of the situation"? The answer is a variation on Stalin's answer to the question: "Which deviation is worse, the Rightist or the Leftist one?": they are both worse. What we should do is adopt the stance of the proper dialectical paradox: in principle, of course, one should be indifferent to the struggle between the liberal and conservative poles of today's official politics however, one can only afford to be indifferent if the liberal option is in power. Otherwise, the price may appear much too high consider the catastrophic consequences of the German Communist Party's decision in the early 1930s not to focus on the struggle against the Nazis, with the justification that the Nazi dictatorship was the last desperate stage of capitalist domination, which would open the eyes of the working class, shattering their belief in "bourgeois" democratic institutions. Along these lines, even Claude Lefort, whom no one can accuse of Communist sympathies, recently made a crucial point in his answer to Francois Furet: today's liberal consensus is the result of a hundred and fifty years of Leftist workers' struggle and pressure upon the State; it incorporated demands which were dismissed by liberals with horror a hundred years ago even less.'97 If we need proof, we should simply look at the list of the demands at the end of the Communist Manifesto: apart from two or three of them (which, of course, are the crucial ones), all the others are today part of the consensus (at least the disintegrating Welfare State consensus): universal franchise; free education; universal healthcare and care for the elderly; a limitation on child labour. ... In short, today's "bourgeois democracy" is the result not of liberalism's intrinsic development, but of the proletarian class struggle

. It is true that, today, it is the radical populist Right which usually breaks the

(still) prevailing liberal-democratic consensus, gradually making acceptable hitherto excluded ideas (the partial justification of Fascism, the need to constrain abstract citizenship on grounds of ethnic identity, etc.). However, the hegemonic liberal democracy is using this fact to blackmail the Left radicals: "We shouldn't play with fire: against the new Rightist onslaught, we should insist more than ever on the democratic consensus any criticism of it, wittingly or unwittingly, helps the New Right!" This is the key line of separation: we should reject this blackmail, taking the risk of disturbing the liberal consensus, even up to questioning the very notion of democracy. The ultimate answer to the criticism that radical Left proposals are utopian should thus be that, today, the true utopia is the belief that the present liberal-democratic capitalist consensus can go on indefinitely, with- out radical change. We are therefore back with the old '68 slogan "Soyons realistes, demandons l'impossible!": in order to be a true "realist", we must consider breaking out of the constraints of what appears "possible " (or, as we usually put it,
"feasible").

The focus on race becomes an alibi for acquiescence of class struggles they obscure the logic of capital and ensure repetition of oppression
Zavarzadeh 94 (Mas'Ud, The Stupidity That Consumption Is Just as Productive as Production": In the Shopping Mall of the Post-al Left," College Literature, Vol. 21, No. 3, The Politics of Teaching Literature 2 (Oct., 1994),pp. 92-114) Post-al logic is marked above all by its erasure of "production" as the determining force in organizing human societies and their institutions, and its insistence on "consumption" and "distribution" as the driving force of the social.5 The argument of the post-al left (briefly) is that "labor," in advanced industrial "democracies," is superseded by "information," and consequently "knowledge" (not class struggle over the rate of surplus labor) has become the driving force of history. The task of the post-al left is to deconstruct the "metaphysics of labor" and consequently to announce the end of
socialism and with it the "outdatedness" of the praxis of abolishing private property (that is, congealed alienated labor) in the post-al moment. Instead of abolishing private property, an enlightened radical democracy which is to supplant socialism (as Laclau, Mouffe, Aronowitz, Butler, and others have advised) should make property holders of each citizen. The post-al left rejects the global objective conditions of production for the local subjective circumstances of consumption, and its master trope is what R-4 [France] so clearly foregrounds: the (shopping) "mall"?the ultimate site of consumption "with all latest high-tech textwares" deployed to pleasure the "body." In fact, the post-al left has "invented" a whole new interdiscipline called "cultural studies" that provides the new alibi for the regime of profit by shifting social analytics from "production" to "consumption." (On the political economy of "invention" in ludic theory, see Transformation 2 on "The Invention of the Queer.") To prove its "progressiveness," the post-al left devotes most of its energies (see the writings of John Fiske, Constance Penley, Michael Berube, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Andrew Ross, Susan Willis, Stuart Hall, Fredric Jameson), to demonstrate how "consumption" is in fact an act of production and resistance to capitalism and a practice in which a Utopian vision for a society of equality is performed! The shift

from

"production" to "consumption" manifests itself in post-al left theories through the focus on "superstructural" cultural analysis and the preoccupation not with the "political economy" ("base") but with "representation"? for instance, of race, sexuality, environment, ethnicity, nationality, and identity. This is, for example, one reason for [Hill's] ridiculing the "base" and
"superstructure" analytical model of classical Marxism (Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) with an anecdote (the privileged mode of "argument" for the post-al left) that the base is really not all that "basic." To adhere to the base/superstructure model for [him] is to be thrown into an "epistemological gulag." For [France] puts it, class

the post-al left a good society is, therefore, one in which, as antagonism is bracketed and the "surplus value" is distributed more evenly among men and women, whites and persons of color, the lesbian and the straight. It is not a society in which "surplus value"?the
exploitative appropriation of the other's labor-is itself eliminated by revolutionary praxis. The post-al left's good society is not one in which private ownership is obsolete and the social division of labor (class) is abolished. Rather it

is a society in which the fruit of exploitation of the proletariat (surplus labor) is more evenly distributed and a near-equality of consumption is established.
This distributionist/consumptionist theory that underwrites the economic interests of the (upper)middle classes is the foundation for all the texts in this exchange and their pedagogies. A good pedagogy in these texts therefore is one in which power is distributed evenly in the classroom: a pedagogy that constructs a classroom of consensus not antagonism (thus opposition to "politicizing the classroom" in OR-1 [Hogan]) and in which knowledge (concept) is turned through the process that OR-3 [McCormick] calls "translation"?into "consumable" EXPERIENCES. The more "intense" the experience, as the anecdotes of [McCormick] show, the more successful the pedagogy. In short, it

is a pedagogy that removes the student from his/her position in the social relations of production and places her/him in the personal relation of consumption : specifically, EXPERIENCE of/as the consumption of pleasure. The post-al logic obscures the laws of motion of capital by very specific assumptions and moves-many of which are rehearsed in the
texts here. I will discuss some of these, mention others in passing, and hint at several more. (I have provided a full account of all these moves in my "Post-ality" in Transformation 1.) I begin by outlining the post-al assumptions that "democracy" is a never-ending, open "dialogue" and "conversation" among multicultural citizens; that the source of social inequities is "power"; that a post-class hegemonic "coalition," as OR-5 [Williams] calls it-and not class struggle-is the dynamics of social change; that truth (as R-l [Hill] writes) is an "epistemological gulag"? a construct of power and thus any form of "ideology critique" that raises questions of "falsehood" and "truth" ("false consciousness") does so through a violent exclusion of the "other" truths by, in [Williams'] words, "staking sole legitimate claim" to the truth in question. Given the injunction of the post-al logic against binaries (truth/falsehood), the project of "epistemology" is displaced in the ludic academy by "rhetoric." The question, consequently, becomes not so much what is the "truth" of a practice but whether it "works." (Rhetoric has always served as an alibi for pragmatism.) Therefore, [France] is not interested in whether my practices are truthful but in what effects they might have: if College Literature publishes my texts would such an act (regardless of the "truth" of my texts) end up "cutting our funding?" [he] asks. A post-al leftist like [France], in short, "resists" the state only in so far as the state does not cut [his] "funding." Similarly, it is enough for a cynical pragmatist like [Williams] to conclude that my argument "has little prospect of effectual force" in order to disregard its truthfulness. The

post-al dismantling of "epistemology" and the erasure of the question of "truth," it must be pointed out, is undertaken to protect the economic interests of the ruling class. If the "truth question" is made to seem outdated and an example of an orthodox binarism ([Hill]), any conclusions about the truth of ruling class practices are excluded from the scene of social contestation as a violent logocentric (positivistic) totalization that disregards the "difference" of the ruling class. This is why a defender of the ruling class such as [Hill] sees an ideology critique
aimed at unveiling false consciousness and the production of class consciousness as a form of "epistemological spanking." It is this structure of assumptions that enables [France] to answer my question, "What is wrong with being dogmatic?" not in terms of its truth but by reference to its pragmatics (rhetoric): what is "wrong" with dogmatism, [he] says, is that it is violent rhetoric ("textual Chernobyl") and thus Stalinist. If I ask what is wrong with Stalinism, again (in terms of the logic of [his] text) I will not get a political or philosophical argument but a tropological description.6 The post-al left is a New Age Left: the "new new left" privileged by [Hill] and [Williams]- the laid-back, "sensitive," listening, and dialogic left of coalitions, voluntary work, and neighborhood activism (more on these later). It is, as I will show, antiintellectual and populist; its theory is "bite size" (mystifying, of course, who determines the "size" of the "bite"), and its model of social change is anti-conceptual "spontaneity": May 68, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and, in [Hill's] text, Chiapas. In the classroom, the New Age post-al pedagogy inhibits any critique of the truth of students' statements and instead offers, as [McCormick] makes clear, a "counseling," through anecdotes, concerning feelings. The

rejection of "truth" (as "epistemological gulag"?[Hill]), is accompanied by the rejection of what the post-al left calls "economism." Furthermore, the post-al logic relativizes subjectivities, critiques functionalist explanation, opposes "determinism," and instead of closural readings, offers supplementary ones. It also celebrates eclecticism; puts great emphasis on the social as discourse and on discourse as always inexhaustible by any single interpretation? discourse (the
social) always "outruns" and "exceeds" its explanation. Post-al logic is, in fact, opposed to any form of "explanation" and in favor of mimetic description: it regards "explanation" to be the intrusion of a violent outside and "description" to be a respectful, caring attention to the immanent laws of signification (inside). This notion of description which has by now become a new dogma in ludic feminist theory under the concept of "mimesis" (D. Cornell, Beyond Accommodation)?regards politics to be always immanent to practices: thus the banalities about not politicizing the classroom in [Hogan's] "anarchist" response to my text7 and the repeated opposition to binaries in all nine texts. The

opposition to binaries is, in fact, an ideological alibi for erasing class struggle, as is quite clear in [France's] rejection
of the model of a society "divided by two antagonistic classes" (see my Theory and its Other).

The affs approach to knowledge which privileges subjectivity and uncertainty denies the objectivity in class relations and the oppression that is produced from capital accumulation
Zavarzadeh 94 (Mas'Ud, The Stupidity That Consumption Is Just as Productive as Production": In the Shopping Mall of the Post-al Left,"
College Literature, Vol. 21, No. 3, The Politics of Teaching Literature 2 (Oct., 1994), pp. 92-114)

The unsurpassable objectivity which is not open to rhetorical interpretation and constitutes the decided foundation of critique is the "outside" that Marx calls the "Working Day" (Capital 1: 340-416). ([France] willfully misrecognizes my notion of
objectivity by confusing my discussion of identity politics and objectivity.) The working day is not what it seems: its reality, like the reality of all capitalist practices, is an alienated reality-there is a contradiction between its appearance and its essence. It

"appears" as if the worker, during the working day, receives wages that are equal compensation for his labor. This mystification originates in the fact that the capitalist pays not for "labor" but for "labor power": when labor power is put to use it produces more than it is paid for. The "working day" is the site of the unfolding of this fundamental contradiction: it is a divided day, divided into "necessary labor" the part in which the worker produces value equivalent to his wages and the "other," the part of "surplus labor"?a part in which the worker works for free and produces "surplus value." The second part of the working day is the source of profit and accumulation of capital. "Surplus labor" is the OBJECTIVE FACT of capitalist relations of production: without "surplus labor" there will be no profit, and without profit there will be no accumulation of capital, and without accumulation of capital there will be no capitalism. The goal of bourgeois economics is to conceal this part of the working day, and it should therefore be no surprise that, as a protector of ruling
class interests in the academy, [Hill], with a studied casualness, places "surplus value" in the adjacency of "radical bible-studies" and quietly turns it into a rather boring matter of interest perhaps only to the dogmatic. To be more concise: "surplus

labor" is that objective, unsurpassable "outside" that cannot be made part of the economies of the "inside" without capitalism itself being transformed into socialism. Revolutionary critique is grounded in this truth-objectivity-since all social institutions and practices of capitalism are founded upon the objectivity of surplus labor. The role of a
revolutionary pedagogy of critique is to produce class consciousness so as to assist in organizing people into a new vanguard party that aims at abolishing this FACT of the capitalist system and trans-forming capitalism into a communist society. As I have argued in my "Postality" [Transformation 1], (post)structuralist theory, through the

concept of "representation," makes all such facts an effect of interpretation and turns them into "undecidable" processes. The boom in ludic theory and Rhetoric Studies in the bourgeois academy is caused by the service it renders the ruling class: it makes the OBJECTIVE reality of the extraction of surplus labor a subjective one-not a decided fact but a matter of "interpretation." In doing so, it "deconstructs" (see the writings of such bourgeois readers as Gayatri Spivak, Cornel West, and Donna Haraway) the labor theory of value, displaces production with consumption, and resituates the citizen from the revolutionary cell to the ludic shopping mall of [France].

The systems unsustainable debt, offshoring, financialization, eco only shift from capital averts extinction Shor 10 (Fran Shor teaches in the History Department at Wayne State University. He is the author of Dying Empire: US Imperialism and
Global Resistance (Routledge 2010).http://www.stateofnature.org/locatingTheContemporary.html)
Attributing the debilitation of the U.S. economy to a mortgage crisis or the collapse of the housing market misses the

truly epochal crisis in the world economy and, indeed, in capitalism itself. As economist Michael Hudson contends, " the financial 'wealth creation' game is over . Economies emerged from World War II relatively free of debt, but the 60-year global run-up has run its course. Financial capitalism is in a state of collapse, and marginal palliatives cannot revive it ." According to Hudson, among
those palliatives is an ironic variant of the IMF strategies imposed on developing nations. "The new twist is a variant on the IMF 'stabilization' plans that lend money to central banks to support their currencies - for long enough to enable local oligarchs and foreign investors to move their savings and investments offshore at a good exchange rate." The continuity between these IMF plans and even the Obama administration's fealty to Wall Street can be seen in the person of Lawrence

Summers, now the chief economic advisor to Obama. As further noted by Hudson, "the Obama bank bailout is arranged much like an IMF loan to support the exchange rate of foreign currency, but with the Treasury supporting financial asset prices for U.S. banks and other financial institutions ... Private-sector

debt will be moved onto the U.S. Government balance sheet, where "taxpayers" will bear losses." [4] So,
here we have another variation of the working poor getting sapped by the economic elite! In fact, one estimate of U.S. federal government support to the elite financial institutions is in the range of $10 trillion dollars, a heist of unimaginable proportions. [5] Given States, its reliance

the massive indebtedness of the United of foreign support of that debt by countries like China, which has close to $2 trillion tied up in treasury bills and other investments, a long-term crisis of profitability, overproduction, and offshoring of essential manufacturing, it does not appear that the United States and, perhaps, even the capitalist system can avoid collapse. Certainly, there are Marxist economists and world-systems analysts who are convinced that the collapse is inevitable, albeit it may take several generations to complete. The question becomes whether a dying system can be resuscitated or, if something else can be put in its place. One of the most prominent world
systems scholars, Immanuel Wallerstein, puts the long-term crisis of capitalism and the alternatives in the following perspective: Because the system we have known for 500 years is no longer able to guarantee long-term prospects of capital accumulation, we

have entered a period of world chaos. Wild (and largely uncontrollable) swings in the economic, political, and military situations are leading to a systemic bifurcation, that is, to a world collective choice about the kind of new system the world will construct over the next fifty years. The new system will not be a capitalist system, but it could be one of two kinds: a different system that is equally or more hierarchical and inequalitarian, or one that is substantially democratic and equalitarian. [6] What Wallerstein overlooks is the possibility that a global crisis of capitalism
with its continuous overexploitation and maldistribution of essential resources, such as water, could

lead to a planetary

catastrophe.

[7] While Wallerstein and many of the Marxist critics of capitalism correctly identify the long-term structural crisis of capitalism and offer

important insights into the need for more democratic and equalitarian systems, they often fail to realize other critical predicaments that have plagued human societies in the past and persist in even more life-threatening ways today. Among those predicaments are the

power trips of civilization and environmental destructiveness. Such power trips can be seen through the sedimentation of power-over in the reign of patriarchal systems and an evolutionary selection for that power-over which contaminates society and social relationships. Certainly, many of those
predicaments can also be attributed to a 5000 year history of the intersection of empire and civilization. Anthropologist Kajsa Ekholm Friedman analyzes that intersection and its impact in the Bronze Age as an "imperialist

project..., dependent upon trade and ultimately upon war." [8] However,

over the long rule of empire and especially within the last 500 years of the global aspirations of various empires, " no state or empire," observes historian Eric Hobsbawm, "has been large, rich, or powerful enough to maintain hegemony over the political world, let alone to establish political and military supremacy over the globe." [9] While war and trade still remain key components of the imperial project today and pretensions for global supremacy persist in the United States, what is just

as threatening to the world as we know it is the overexploitation and abuse of environmental resources. Jared Diamond brilliantly reveals how habituated attitudes and values precluded the necessary recognition of environmental degradation which, in
turn, led to the collapse of vastly different civilizations, societies, and cultures throughout recorded history. [10] He identifies twelve contemporary environmental challenges which pose grave dangers to the planet and its inhabitants. Among these are the destruction

of natural habitats (rainforests, wetlands, etc.); species extinction; soil erosion; depletion of fossil fuels and underground water aquifers; toxic pollution; and climate change, especially attributable to the use of fossil fuels. [11] U.S. economic imperialism has played a direct role in environmental degradation, whether in McDonald's resource destruction of rainforests in Latin America, Coca-Cola's exploitation of underground water aquifers in India, or Union Carbide's toxic pollution in India. Beyond the links between empire and environmental destruction, unless we also clearly understand and combat the connections between empire and unending growth with its attendant "accumulation by dispossession", we may very well doom ourselves to extinction . According to James Gustave Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, the macro obsession with growth is also intimately related to our micro habituated ways of living .
"Parallel to transcending our growth fetish," Speth argues, "we must move beyond our consumerism and hyperventilating lifestyles ... This reluctance to challenge consumption has been a big mistake, given the mounting environmental and social costs of American "affluenza," extravagance and wastefulness." [12] Of course, there are significant class and ethnic/racial differences in consumerism and lifestyle in the United States. However, even more vast differences and inequities obtain between the U.S. and the developing world. It is those inequities that lead Eduardo Galeano to conclude that "consumer society is a booby trap. Those at the controls feign ignorance, but anybody with eyes in his head can see that the great majority of people necessarily must consume not much, very little, or nothing at all in order to save the bit of nature we have left." [13] Finally, from Vandana Shiva's perspective, " unless

restructured ecologically, peace and justice will continue to be violated and, ultimately,

worldviews and lifestyles are the very survival of humanity will be

threatened ." [14] For Shiva and other global agents of resistance, the ecological and peace and justice imperatives require us to act in the here and now. Her vision of "Earth Democracy" with its emphasis on balancing authentic needs with a local ecology provides an essential
guidepost to what we all can do to stop the ravaging of the environment and to salvage the planet. As she insists, "Earth Democracy is not just about the next protest or next World Social Forum; it is about what we do in between. It addresses the global in our everyday lives, our everyday realities, and creates change globally by making change locally." [15] The local, national, and transnational struggles and visions of change are further evidence that the imperial

project is not only being contested but also being transformed on a daily basis. According to Mark Engler, "The

powerful will abandon their strategies of control only when it grows too costly for them to do otherwise. It is the

concerted efforts of people coming together in local communities and in movements spanning borders that will raise the costs. Empire becomes unsustainable ... when the people of the world resist."
[16] Whether in the rural villages of Brazil or India, the jungles of Mexico or Ecuador, the city squares of Cochabama or Genoa, the streets of Seattle or Soweto, there has been, and continues to be, resistance around the globe to the imperial project. If the ruling elite and many of the citizens of the United States have not yet accepted the fact that the

empire is dying and with it the concentric circles of economic, political, environmental, and civilizational crises, the global multitudes have been busy at work, digging its future grave and planting the seeds for another possible world. [17]

The alternative is to reject the aff to universally oppose capitalism The role of the ballot is to deliberate over questions of method Refusing to engage in capital collapses it.

Holloway, 2010
Crack Capitalism, 3-7)

(John, Professor in the Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades of the Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla in Mexico,

Break. We want to break. We want to break the world as it is. A world of injustice, of war, of violence, of discrimination, of Gaza and Guantanamo. A world of billionaires and a billion people who live and die in hunger. A world in which humanity is annihilating itself, massacring non-human forms of life, destroying the conditions of its own existence. A world ruled by money, ruled by capital. A world of frustration, of wasted potential. We want to create a different world. We protest, of course we protest. We protest against the
war, we protest against the growing use of torture in the world, we protest against th turning of all life into a commodity to be bought and sold, we protest against the inhuman treatment of

If we only protest, we allow the powerful to set the agenda. If all we do is oppose what they are trying to do, then we simply follow in their footsteps. Breaking means that we do more than that, that we seize the initiative, that we set the agenda. We negate, but out of our negation grows a creation, another-doing, an activity that is not determined by money, an activity that is not shaped by the rules of power. Often the alternative doing grows out of necessity: the functioning of the capitalist market does not allow us to survive and we need to find other ways to live, forms of solidarity and cooperation. Often too it comes from choice: we refuse to submit our lives to the rule of money, we dedicate ourselves to what we consider necessary or desirable. Either way, we live the world we want to create. Now. There is an urgency in all this. Enough! ja basta! W have had enough of living in, and creating, a world of exploitation, violence and starvation. And now there is a new Urgency, the urgency of time itself. It has become clear that we humans are destroying the natural conditions of our own existence, and it seems unlikely that a society in which the determining force is the pursuit of profit can reverse this trend. The temporal dimensions of
migrants, we protest against the destruction of the world in the interests of profit. We protest and we do more. We do and we must. radical and revolutionary thought have changed. We place a skull on our desks, like the monks of old, not to glorify death, but to focus on the impending danger and intensify the struggle for

It no longer makes sense to speak of patience as a revolutionary virtue or to talk of the 'future revolution'. What future? We need revolution now, here and now. So absurd, so necessary. So obvious. Nothing more common, nothing more obvious. There is nothing special about being an anti-capitalist revolutionary. This is the story of many, many people, of millions, perhaps billions. It is the story of the composer in London who expresses his anger and his dream of a better society through the music he composes. It is the story of the gardener in Cholula who creates a garden to struggle against the destruction of nature. Of the car worker in Birmingham who goes in the evenings to his garden allotment so that he has some activity that has meaning and pleasure for him. Of the indigenous peasants in Oventic, Chiapas, who create an autonomous space of self-government and defend it every day against the paramilitaries who harass them. Of the university professor in Athens who creates a seminar outside the university framework for the promotion of critical thought. Of the book publisher in Barcelona who centres his activity on publishing books against capitalism. Of the friends in Porto Alegre who form a choir, just because they enjoy singing. Of the teachers in Puebla who confront police oppression to fight for a different type of school, a
life.

different type of education. Of the theatre director in Vienna who decides she will use her skills to open a different world to those who see her plays. Of the call centre worker in Sydney who fills all his vacant moments thinking of how to fight for a better society. Of the people of Cochabamba who come together and fight a battle against the government and the army so that water should not be privatised but subject to their own control. Of the nurse in Seoul who does everything possible to help her patients, Of the workers in Neuquen who occupy the factory and make it theirs. Of the student in New York who decides that university is a time for questioning the world. Of the community worker in Dalkeith who looks for cracks in the framework of rules that constrain him so that he can open another world. Of the young man in Mexico City, who, incensed by the brutality of capitalism, goes to the jungle to organise armed struggles to change the world. Of the retired teacher in Berlin who devotes her life to the struggle against capitalist globalisation. Of the government worker in Nairobi who gives all her free time to the struggle against AIDS. Of the university teacher in Leeds who uses the space that still exists in some universities to set up a course on activism and social change. Of the old man living in an ugly block of flats on the outskirts of Beirut who cultivates plants on his windowsill as a revolt against the concrete that surrounds him. Of the young woman in Ljubljana, the young man in Florence, who, like so many others throughout the world, throw their lives into inventing new forms of struggle for a better world. Of the peasant in Huejotzingo who refuses to allow his small orchard to be annexed to a massive park of unsold cars. Of the group of homeless friends in Rome who occupy a vacant house and refuse to pay rent. Of the enthusiast in Buenos Aires who devotes all his great energies to opening new perspectives for a different world. Of the girl in Tokyo who says she will not go to work today and goes to sit in the park with her book, this book or some other. Of the young man in France who devotes himself to building dry toilets as a contribution to radically altering the relation between humans and nature. Of the telephone engineer in Jalapa who leaves his job to spend more time with his children. Of the woman in Edinburgh who, in everything she does, expresses her rage through the creation of a world of love and mutual support. This is the story of ordinary people, some of whom I know, some of whom I have heard of, some of whom I have invented. Ordinary people: rebels, revolutionaries perhaps. 'We are quite ordinary women and men, children and old people, that is, rebels, non-conformists, misfits, dreamers', say the Zapatistas in their most profound and difficult challenge of all.] The ordinary people' in our list are very different from one Another. It may seem strange to place the car worker who goes to His allotment in the evening next to the young man who goes to the jungle to devote his life to organising armed struggle against capitalism, and yet there is a continuity. What both have in 'common is that they share in a movement of refusal-and-other-creation: they are rebels, not victims; subjects, not objects. In the case of the car worker, it is individual and just evenings and weekends; in the case of the young man in the jungle, it is a very perilous commitment to a life of rebellion. Very different and yet with a line of affinity that it would be very wrong to overlook. Nothing more simple. The sixteenth-century French theorist La
Boetie expressed the simplicity of revolution with great clarity in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (154612002: 139-40): You sow your crops in order that he [the lord] may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows-to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard

From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces . Everything that the tyrant has comes from us
labour in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check.

and from his exploitation of us: we have only to stop working for him and he will cease to be a tyrant because the material basis of his tyranny will have disappeared. We make the tyrant; in order to be free we must stop making the tyrant. The key to our emancipation, the key to becoming fully human is simple: refuse, disobey. Resolve to serve no more, and you are once at freed. Nothing more difficult, however. We can refuse to perform the work that creates the tyrant. We can devote ourselves to different type of activity. Instead of yielding our bodies unto hard labour in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy

Nothing more common, nothing more obvious, And yet, we know that it is not so simple. If we do not devote our lives to the labour that create capital, we face poverty, even starvation, and often physical repression. Just down the road from where I write, the people of Oaxaca asserted their control
pleasures', we can do something that we consider important or desirable. over the city during a period of five month , against a corrupt and brutal governor. Finally, their peaceful rebellion was repressed with violence and many were tortured, sexually abused, threatened with being thrown from helicopter , their fingers broken, some simply disappeared. For me, Oaxaca i jll t down the road. But for you, gentle reader, it is not much farther, and there are many other 'just down the roads' where atrocities are being committed in your name. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo - and there are many, many more to choose from. Often it seems hopeless. So many failed revolutions. So many exciting experiments in anti-capitalism that have ended in frustration and recrimination. It has been said that 'today it is easier to imagine the end of the

We have reached a stage where it is easier to think of the total annihilation of humanity than to imagine a change in the organisation of a manifestly unjust and destructive society, What can we do ?
world than the end of capitalism' (Turbulence 2008: 3).

JARC is part of the 1996 welfare reform acts designed to tie welfare to personal responsibilitythis is neoliberalism at its worst Sandoval and Petersen 2007 (Faculty Fellow, Institute for Policy Research
Assistant Professor of Sociology Northwestern University; Cambridge Systematics researcher, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Working Papers, http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/workingpapers/2006/wp0608.pdf In 1996, Congress passed a sweeping welfare reform law called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which replaced the existing welfare entitlement program and emphasized moving welfare recipients towards full-time employment. Congress

recognized that the poor faced a major spatial mismatch in terms of where they lived (generally the central city) and where new employment opportunities were in metropolitan areas (generally the outer suburbs) (Gomez Ibanez 1984; Kasarda 1988; Sanchez, Stolz et al. 2003).1Thus, PRWORA was bundled with new transportation programs targeted at low-income workers to assist them to make the transition to full time
work. One of the major obstacles that welfare mothers faced was a poor and insufficient transportation infrastructure (Blumenberg 2004; Cervero 2004; Ortoleva and Brenman 2004; Sanchez, Shen et al. 2004). In response to the transit poor access and service, several policy programs were designed to provide and fund reliable transportation for low-income families.2 The underlying goal for all these programs was to provide social mobility and increase economic opportunity. The primary funds for transportation services for TANF families came from the following sources: TANF (user-side subsidies),

JARC , Welfare-to-Work Grants (Department of labor) and Bridges to Work (Government

Accounting Office 1998 ; Blumenberg 2002). However, the Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed the creation of a much larger $600 million Access to Jobs program to be administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (Government Accounting Office 1998 ).

And JARC is just the transportation arm of the welfare reform act that moves from a focus on vulnerability to mandated employment and neoliberal rationality of personal responsibility Blumenberg and Manville 2004 (Evelyn and Michael, EVELYN BLUMENBERG is an associate
professor of urban plan- ning in the School of Public Policy and Social Research at the Uni- versity of California, Los Angeles. Her research focuses on low-wage labor markets, urban poverty, transportation and the poor, and womens economic status. MICHAEL MANVILLE is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. His interests include urban governance, transportation in low-income communities, megaprojects, and city marketing; Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 19, No. 2 (November 2004).) The passage of welfare reform legislation in 1996 dramatically altered the way the United States dispenses social services. In the aftermath of the Personal Respon- sibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (U.S. Congress 1996), welfare is no longer a program designed to protect vulnerable populations from the uncertainties of the labor market. Rather it is a vehicle for putting them to work and inserting them, within five years at most (and often much faster), into the very realm from which they had once been defended. Thus, welfare reform set out to do what the original welfare program had been designed to prevent. Welfare was established to buffer suitable women from the labor

market, enabling them to remain at home and care for their children (Gordon 1994); in contrast, welfare reform was initiated, as former President Clinton put it, to end welfare by mandating employment .

Green capitalism holds to the development of the capitalist economy, a view which is based on constant growth which creates ecological scarcities and environmental derogation.
Brett Clark and Richard York. 2005. [Sociology doctoral student at the University of Oregon/Assistant professor of sociology at the University of Oregon.+ Dialectical Materialism and Nature: An Alternative to Economism and Deep Ecology, <http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/318> In an era when neoliberal capitalism dominates the world economy and is assumed to be the only political-economic option available, it should come as no surprise that an economistic understanding of human-environment interactions is highly prevalent. Of course, economistic approaches are not unified, given the wide range of their interests and variation in the extent that they directly address the environment. But they are connected by both their mechanical view of nature and optimism that human society can surmount any natural barriers that exist through technological innovation. For them, economics is the measure of the world, in all of its aspects. Nature, if it is considered at all, is seen as a problem, a barrier to overcome. It remains a world of Newtons clock, mechanical in its organization, malleable before our ingenuity. Proponents of economic modernization, ecological modernization, and green capitalism adhere to the position that the ongoing development of the capitalist economy, often simply referred to as modernization, will provide the means for addressing and correcting environmental problems. Although the Club of Romes report was not without shortcomings, it did highlight that an economy driven by the ceaseless accumulation of capital, through the endless expansion of production and consumption, exists in conflict with a finite world (Meadows, 1972). Furthermore, scientists noted that an economic system based on constant growth generated ecological scarcities and environmental degradation that could not be reversed within human time frames (Commoner, 1971; Ehrlich, Ehrlich, & Holdren, 1973). The short-term focus of economists on profits conflicted with the long-term health of the environment. Orthodox economists could not account for the concerns being raised by the
environmental movement at the time. One approach, by economists, was to deny concerns regarding limits to growth by arguing that so long as technological innovation continues and substitutes exist for natural resources, no immediate concern existed (Simon, 1981; Solow, 1974). In this, the conditions of the environment were assumed to be effectively irrelevant to society. Characteristically, nature

was seen as simply a reserve of resources, waiting to be used in the production of commodities for the market.

Aims at reformation only re-create violence Holloway, 2010 (John, Professor in the Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades of the Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla in Mexico, Crack Capitalism, 60-61)
But then what do we say of Bolivia and Venezuela? Are they to be counted as cracks in capitalist domination? Probably all revolutionary movements are a confluence of many movements, of people fighting for change in different ways and for different reasons. We have simplified this multiplicity by emphasising two forms of struggle; the politics of dignity and the politics of poverty, the politics of councils or assemblies and the politics of parties focused on the state. These two struggles are often interwoven, often mixed within the same organisation or indeed the same individual, but the way in which they interact will have profound consequences for the movement for change. The Russian revolution, for example, was a complex mixture of council (soviet) organisation and state-centred organisation. The tension between the two forms of organisation led to the suppression of the soviets and the development of an oppressive regime under the mocking title of the Soviet Union. In other cases, the development has been less disastrous and less bloody, but the politics of monologue has undoubtedly prevailed: Cuba is a case in point. In the case of Bolivia and Venezuela, the processes are still open at the time of

writing, but with a clear predominance of the state. Raquel Gutierrez, in her profound analysis of the struggles in Bolivia (2009), distinguishes between the 'national-popular' struggle and the 'communitarian-popular' struggle.19 The latter comes from and develops the traditional communitarian forms of direct democracy and has at its centre the affirmation of dignity and a refusal to accept alien domination. It was this that was the driving force of the struggles from 2000 to 2005. But this struggle of dignity was overlaid by the 'national-popular struggle', which focuses on the state and pushes for the concretisation of the achievements of the struggles in the form of a new government. This meant channelling the struggles into the party-form (the MAS) and led eventually to the election of Evo Morales as president of Bolivia. This brings significant reforms to the state, but involves a demobilisation and de-radicalisation of the original movement. The original uprising by the people themselves is converted into a movement on behalf of the people, and this leads inevitably to the reproduction of state practices and to accommodations with the interests of capital. In the case of Venezuela, the course of the struggles has been different, but there too there is the coexistence of two movements: the movement of community-based struggle from below and the state-centred struggle from above. Here the struggle has been much more clearly state-dominated from the beginning, but, at least since the attempted coup against Chavez in 2002, it has been clear that the strength of the movement as a whole is very dependent on the strength of the movement from below. The process of transformation is seen as a movement from two sides, above and below, and the leaders speak of the need to overcome the bourgeois state and create a 'communal type of state'.20 The creation and promotion of communal councils is at the core of this movement.21

2NC Impact Overview

Public transportation plays a vital role in the urban economy in that it creates placebased advantages, facilitates the circulation of capital, and attracts investment in local real estate markets Uneven geographic development is produced by a constellation of factors consisting of (1) the embedding of capital accumulation processes in space The neoliberal trend towards premium public transportation deployed for the purposes of constructing competitive advantages in the global capitalist system privileges profit making for capital Capitalism is the system of greed and creates inequality along with injustice among the population
McCarraher, 11, an associate professor of humanities at Villanova University (Eugene McCarraher, an associate professor of
humanities at Villanova University, The End of Capitalism and the Wellsprings of Radical Hope, The nation, June 27th, 2011, accessed June 22nd, 2011, T.C. http://www.thenation.com/article/161237/end-capitalism-and-wellsprings-radical-hope?page=0,0,0,0)

Why should we want to reinvent capitalism? Rather than reinvent it, we should remind ourselves why capitalism is so pernicious. We could start by stating the obvious (which, apparently, needs restating): the nature and logic of capitalism are incorrigibly avaricious. As a property system driven by the need to maximize profit and production, capitalism is a giant, ever-whirling vortex of accumulation. Anything but conservative, its the most dynamic and protean economy in history. As Marx observed in the opening pages of The Communist Manifesto, capitalism thrives on constant reinvention: The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Always seeking new ways to make money, capitalists have reinvented the system several times already. Enclosures, factories, Fordism, automation and flexible productionmetamorphosis for the sake of profit is the only constant in capitalism. Each incarnation has featured new brands of exploitation and corruption, designed and packaged
by masters of economic and managerial sophistry. To be sure, reformers have been partially successful at shaping these reinventions: collective bargaining, regulations of business, the welfare state. Whatever victories for justice working people have won have been hard-fought and tenuous, the fruit of protracted struggle. But however ingenious or effective the reforms, theyve been limited, if not eventually subverted, by the intractably mercenary nature of capitalism. As we can see from the history of the past forty yearsan era that has been marked by a transatlantic assault on social democracy and New Deal/Great Society liberalismthe rage to accumulate remains the predatory heart and soul of capitalism. We have good reason to assume that capitalists will always seek and find fresh ways to cast off the fetters and vanquish their opponents. But the

iniquity of capitalism goes deeper than its injustice as a political economy, its amoral ingenuity in technical prowess or its rapacious relationship to the natural world. However lissome its face or benign its manner, capitalism compels us to be greedy, callous and petty. It takes what the Greeks called pleonexiaan endless hunger for more and moreand transforms it from a tawdry and dangerous vice into the central virtue of the system. The sanctity of growth in capitalist culture stems from this moral alchemy, as does the elevation of market competition into a model of human affairs. Conscripting us into an economic war, capitalism turns us into soldiers of fortune, steeled against casualties and collateral damage, ransacking the earth to fill the shelves and banks with plunder. Capitalism stands condemned most profoundly not by its maldistribution of wealth or its ecological despoliation but by its systematic cultivation of people inclined toward injustice and predation. And I think we on the left need to
start dismissing as utterly irrelevant the standard apologetic riposte: the material prosperity and technological achievement generated by capitalist enterprise. No amount of goods can compensate for the damage wrought on human nature by the deliberate nurturance of our vilest

qualities. The

desecration of the values we claim to hold most dear is the primary reason we should want to abolish, not reinvent, capitalism.

2NC Method FIRST

The epistemology of mobility structures policy Cresswell 06 (Tim Cresswell Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK; The Right to Mobility: The Production of Mobility in the
Courtroom, Antipode volume 38 issue 4)

It is this status of a necessary social production, I argue, that makes knowledge surrounding mobility (like that surrounding other fundamental geographical concepts such as space and place) so important and so deeply implicated in the politics of the modern world. Stasis and mobility, fixity and flow are the subjects of deep knowledges that inform any number of ways of seeing the world. For this reason an understanding of the ways in which ideas about fixity and flow provide a profound undercurrent to thinking which is closer to the surface of cultural lifesuch as lawenacts a critical geosophy. It enables us to examine the role of geographical knowledges in the always political and always differentiated production of social life.

Rejection of transportation infrastructure planning is necessary to solve our obsession with mobility extend Halloway expertism plagues the implementation of the plan individuals refusal to partake in capitalist planning mechanism is necessary to open a space for the criticism of fast paced mobility Konrad 09 *Miriam, PhD in sociology from Georgia State University, Transporting Atlanta, State Universty of New York Press, Albany,
2009, p. 4-5]

Efforts to rectify the myriad problems associated with this impasse have for too long focused on individual pieces of the puzzle and behavior modification with little attention to the ideological framework that undergirds the entire system. For example, growth-oriented policies (and the political actors associated with
them) look to ever more roads to alleviate the traffic congestion. Those with a "greener" orientation seek greater walkability, bikability, and more public transit options to address the needs of both those who must move about and the space in which they move. Citizens concerned primarily with issues of equity organize their efforts around policies that will increase the mobility of marginalized members of society, reminding us that, "solutions

guided by a tendency which ignores that fact of inequality will inevitably place the greatest burdens of adjustment on those least able to carry them" (Irrante 1980:516). While all of these actors
are in pursuit of relief for pains arising from the same source, their proposed solutions can at best be palliative and never curative because they attend to symptoms rather than the disease. To further complicate matters, groups of people with the above-mentioned primary interests often find themselves at loggerheads with one another, either in overt conflict (as with the growth and equity groups); in an uneasy and volatile game of concessions and compromises (as with the green and growth groups); or in a strange and often confoundingly strained relationship in which ostensibly compatible goals clash despite the best intentions of the parties involved (as with the equity and green groups). The tensions arising from the open enmity in some instances, the veiled friction between interests in others, and the unsettled alliances created in still others could perhaps be eased if all parties had a more profound understanding of the foundations on which their assumptions about mobility are predicated.

Getting at what lies beneath the asphalt, as it were, will shed light on its seemingly

unstoppable space, energy, and money consumption and perhaps allow for future decision making that includes a more nuanced reading of the landscape . This exploration will therefore include, but not cataloguing of the components of policy formulation as commonly understood: the agenda-setting process, the actors invited to the table, and the outcomes. It will further be an examination of what precedes all of this; the taken for granted assumptions about the meanings and possibilities of mobility. For example, all researchers are aware that what questions we bring to a study in part determine the answers. This is no less true with how transportation policy is created. In terms of equity issues, for instance: How transportation is defined and measured can often determine how equity is evaluated. The use of vehicle mileage, as a measure of travel and traffic congestion, tends to favor more spending on infrastructure improvements and less on other transportation alternatives. Also, transportation planners use other variables in their transportation modeling such as vehicle miles traveled, which favors people who drive their automobile more miles than average, or passenger miles traveled, which favors people
be limited to, a

who travel more than average (Bullard et al 2000:68). If mobility is defined and hierarchically structured in such a way as to marginalize some modes, and even preclude others, we would do well to identify how that construction came into being. As with any social problem, seeking a way out must begin with understanding how we arrived there in the first place.

2NC Link Wall

Perticular Demands against oppressive state practices are revolution without a revolution Thats zizek heres some more specific evidence to their movements Herod 7 (James, Columbia U graduate and political activist, Getting Free Pg. 33 JF)
The so-called new

social movements, based on gender, racial, sexual, or ethnic identities, cannot destroy

capitalism. In general, they havent even tried. Except for a tiny fringe of radicals in each of them, they have been attempting to get into the system, not overthrow it. This is true for women, blacks, homosexuals, and ethnic (including Anative) groups, as well as many other identities old people, people with disabilities, mothers on welfare, and so forth. Nothing has derailed the anticapitalist struggle during the past quarter century so thoroughly as have these movements. Sometimes it seems that identity politics is all that remains of the left. Identity politics has simply swamped class politics. The mainstream versions of these movements (the ones fighting to get into the system rather than overthrow it) have given capitalists a chance to do a little fine-tuning by eliminating tensions here and there, and by including token representatives of the excluded groups. Many of the demands of these movements can be easily accommodated. Capitalists can live with boards of directors exhibiting ethnic, gender, and racial diversity as long as all the board members are procapitalist. Capitalists can easily accept a rainbow cabinet as long as the cabinet is pushing the corporate agenda. So
mainstream identity politics has not threatened capitalism at all. The radical wings of the new social movements, however, are rather more subversive. These militants realized that it was necessary to attack the whole social order in order to uproot racism and sexism problems that could not be overcome under capitalism since they are an integral part of it. There is no denying the evils of racism, sexism, and nationalism, which are major structural supports to ruling-class control. These militants

have done whatever they could to highlight, analyze, and ameliorate these evils. Unfortunately, for the most part, their voices have been lost in all the clamor for admittance to the system by the majorities in their own movements .

Their reformism is anti-revolutionary historically, public social investments like the aff are used to create a narrative of national redemption from racism. The use of expansive taxation and market mechanisms is used to incorporate and defuse antiracist struggles around issues like public transportation Baca 8 [George, assistant professor of anthropology at Goucher College, Neoliberalism and stories of racial redemption, Dialectical
Anthropology, 2008, Volume 32, Number 3, Pages 219-241, Springer]
In the vacuum left by federal government cutbacks, city governments like Fayetteville assumed

greater responsibility for providing basic urban services and physical infrastructure. Yet this only intensified trends already put in place over the previous decades. Rising
responsibilities and decreased contributions of the federal government encouraged city managers throughout the South to reach out to the business interests to promote economic development as an alternative to Federal support, and through this rhetoric, to build a dominant coalition of civil leaders and business interests. Changes under way earlier culminated in the move by Fayettevilles business leaders and public officials to envision local governm ent as an economic development tool whose provisioning responsibilities lay primarily with service to the business community. Eschewing

long held skepticism about governmental interference and taxes, business leaders and governmental officials began to see Federal programs and local revenue streams as means to further the objectives of a narrow segment of Fayettevilles population. Their
first major attempt at merging government and business resulted in an industrial recruitment project, which netted several industrial plants, including Rohm Haas, Kelly Springfield Tire Co, and Black and Decker. These companies added nearly 6,000 industrial jobs to the local tax base. And success led to further expansion. By the early 1970 s, business leaders, city officials, and economic boosters sought to broaden their appeal by remaking the city s image, seeking to erase the notoriety of the towns label Fayettenam, which made the city difficult to sell to outside businesses. This effort to sanitize the citys reputati on targeted what leaders believed to be the epicenter of the problem: the 400 and 500 blocks of Hay Street. Downtown revitalization came to the forefront of city politics in 1977 when a group of private citizens, comprised largely of local architects, sought to demolish this area, and several others, in the na me of urban renewal. In 1981 the mayor ran on a program of Destroying the old image of Fayetteville by closing adult businesses downtown, which he described as a cancer in this city.19 By the f all of 1983, city council began its own attack against Fayettenam by banning strip bars and condemning downtown buildings as, together with the mayor, they staged media events by bulldozing all the buildings on the 500 block of Hay Street. Mayoral supporters heralded this as the day the 500 Block took a tumble.20 These city-backed projects represented both the transformation in the local elite as well as the culmination of processes underway for several decades, as business and

political leaders began connecting the citys reputation with projects designed to attract investment and grow the economy. T hey designed public projects around the needs of land developers and the merchant coalition in ways that connected such things as education and crime prevention in black neighborhoods. City management opened the citys administration to the needs and interests of the business community an d sought a close relationship with ostensibly private business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, the downtown revitalization group, and the Fayetteville Economic Development Corporation. Increasingly, civic

leaders associated the use of public money with cleaning up the citys image and economic development, aimed at growing the tax base, improving the quality of life, and expanding urban services. Fayettevilles political leaders
also expanded the citys authority at the timeincreasing its use of outside resources and access to state and federal aidby connecting city government with the needs of various community groups and the business community , advocating public-private partnerships as a means of meeting what had formerly been primarily city government responsibilities. Throughout this period, Federal

agencies and local governments like that in Fayetteville quickly found that civil rights groups like the NAACP could be configured to promote economic development and technocratic models of service provision through careful inclusion in processes like those above. Well before the Reagan Revolution and popular talk of globalization, mainstream black officials were being absorbed into a developing apparatus of race relations management as either public officials or quasi public functionaries (Reed 1999, p. 1). So successful were these programs that now, nearly half a century later, expansion of the black political sphere and the rise of significant black middle-classes have cloaked fiscal policies that actually decreased federal spending on
healthcare, and public schools,

public transport (Prashad 2006). And ironically, celebration of these and other civil rights victories as the benchmark of black progress helps legitimize economic policies that increase inequality. Indeed, rhetoric about racial progress and reform amid increasingly difficult economic times parallel rhetoric used by white leaders in the transformation of cities like Fayetteville, and have emerged as a great myth of national redemption that preserves the racial cleavages forged during the white supremacy campaigns of the 1890s.21 Federal agencies, like their local counterparts, have found that racial reforms could not only defuse anti-racist struggles but recuperate these energies to uphold an economic policy agenda aimed mainly at the growth of business
public provisioning. at the expense of

The cunning of recognition , as anthropologist Elizabeth Povinelli describes this use of political reforms,
forms of

recognizes the injustices of previous

racism. However, such recognition of the horrors of

slavery is cast in ways that reinvigorate the future of the nation and its economic system (Povinelli 2002, p. 29; also see Williams 1991). Building on the racial institutions designed to manage blacks during segregation, racial reforms have come to embody economic policies that curtail public goods in line with organizations like the World Bank, WTO, and IMF, expanding a brokerage-style politics that has narrowed black politics within the emerging system of neoliberal capitalism. Relations between Civil Rights and
Neoliberal reforms challenge anthropologists to dispense with ideas that simultaneously glorify the civil rights movement and demonize conservative reforms, and treat them as if they represent opposite trends or stand on two sides of a historical rupture. Rather, much

is to be gained by viewing racial

reforms as part of a machinery of governance that has characterized bureaucratic inclusion and development
of southern cities like Fayetteville for much of the twentieth century, and which have as their backdrop and precedent segregation and violent racial militarism. Rather

than treating racial reforms in the abstract, they must be examined in terms of their implementation. As we can see, political leaders in Fayetteville have used Federal authorities and race reforms to readjust the citys racial system to the changing needs of its political and business system. Nostalgic glorification of the bygone days of Fordism and Civil Rights has muddied analysis of civil rights reforms. By the 1960s, federal agencies and local governments like Fayetteville had already started reorienting civil rights groups like the NAACP to economic development and technocratic models of service provision. Well before the rise of Reagan-style neoliberalism, a mainstream black political
class had been absorbed into a developing apparatus of race relations management as either public officials or quasi -public functionaries (Reed 1999, p. 1). The critical failures of anthropology and other social sciences is unfortunate as the federal governments adjustment to the protest of the 1960s served as a catalyst in universalizing economic development and growth, a topic of much concern in todays world, yet which is often dealt with in ah istorical terms. Civil

rights reforms in the U.S. fortified a new pattern of social management which has incorporated opposition movements. Political and economic elites legitimate their programs by integrating potentially antagonistic forces into the logic of centralized administration. With the rise of civil rights management, these forces have
regulated domination and militated against disruptive political strategies while steadily redirecting limited public resources. For nearly half a century federal agencies and their local counterparts have incorporated small numbers of African Americans in ways that have cloaked the very fiscal policies that have decreased

spending on public schools, healthcare, and public transport. And while

black economic success is novel and commendable, the stories of redemption meant to explain their undoing have unwittingly legitimized conservative politics by drawing attention away from fiscal policies that have increased racial inequality and constricted black politics to
ever more narrow channels of business development. The careful combining of racial reform and conservative fiscal policies have defused struggles against racism and recuperated the energy of these struggles to

uphold liberal forms of power in Fayetteville and elsewhere in the U.S. South (Baca 2006).

To make micropolitics visible is to coopt it by giving resistance an object this understanding allows resistance to be framed, to be declared a failure and prevents the immanence of imperceptible politics from coalescing around mundane practices and habitudes of existence Tsianos et al. 8 Vassilis, teaches sociology at the University of Hamburg, Germany, Dimitris
Papadopoulos teaches social theory at Cardiff University, Niamh Stephenson teaches social science at the University of New South Wales. Escape Routes: Control and Subversion in the 21st Century Pluto Press
In this sense imperceptible

politics does not necessarily differ from or oppose other prevalent forms of politics, such as state-oriented politics, micropolitics, identity politics, cultural and gender politics, civil rights movements, etc. And indeed imperceptible politics connects with all these various forms of political engagement and intervention in an opportunistic way: it deploys them to the extent that they allow the establishment of spaces outside representation; that is, spaces which do not primarily focus on the
transformation of the conditions of the double-R axiom (rights and representation) but on the insertion of new social forces into a given political terrain. In the previous chapter we called this form of politics outside politics: the politics which opposes the representational regime of policing. Imperceptibility is the everyday strategy which allows us to move and to act below the overcoding regime of representation. This

everyday strategy is inherently anti-theoretical; that is, it resists any ultimate theorisation, it cannot be reduced to one successful and necessary form of politics (such as state-oriented politics or micropolitics, for example). Rather, imperceptible politics is genuinely empiricist, that is it is always enacted as ad hoc practices which allow the decomposition of the representational strategies in a particular field and the composition of events which cannot be left unanswered by the existing regime of control. If imperceptible politics resists theorisation and is ultimately empiricist, what then are the criteria for doing imperceptible politics? There are three dimensions which characterise imperceptible politics: objectlessness, totality, trust. Firstly, imperceptible politics is objectless, that is it performs political transformation without primarily targeting a specific political aim (such as transformation of a law or institution, or a particular claim for inclusion, etc). Instead imperceptible politics proceeds by materialising its own political actions through contagious and affective transformations. The object of its political practice is its own practices. In this sense, imperceptible politics is non-intentional - and therein lies its difference from state-oriented politics or the politics of civil rights movements, for example - it instigates change through a series of everyday transformations which can only be codified as having a central political aim or function in retrospect. Secondly, imperceptible politics addresses the totality of an
existing field of power. This seems to be the difference between imperceptible politics and micropolitics or other alternative social movements: imperceptible politics is not concerned with containing itself to a molecular level of action; it addresses the totality of power through the social changes which it puts to work in a particular field of action. The distinction between molar and molecular (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p. 275) has only analytical significance from the perspective of imperceptible politics. In fact imperceptible politics is both molar and molecular, because by being local situated action it addresses the whole order of control in a certain field. Imperceptible politics is located at the heart of a field of power and at the same time it opens a way to move outside this field by forcing the transformation of all these elements which are constitutive of this field. In this sense, imperceptible politics is a driving force which is simultaneously both present and absent. We described this in the previous chapter by exploring the importance of speculative figurations for the practice of escape. On the everyday level of escape (a level we called in this chapter imperceptible politics) speculative figuration can be translated into trust. This is the third characteristic of imperceptible

politics; it is driven by a firm belief in the importance and truthfulness of its actions, without seeking any evidence for, or conducting any investigation into its practices. This is trust. Imperceptible politics is driven by trust in something which seems to be absent from a particular situation. Imperceptible politics operates around a void, and it is exactly the conversion of

this void into everyday politics that becomes the vital force for imperceptible politics.

AT: Enviro solves / State Good

Link 1 The prisoners dilemma the state will adapt and follow your politics. It is

worthless to challenge the state in a race to control they have the lead and will copy our strategies before they can become successful. Their political strategy is doomed to failure.
Dixit and Nalebuff 1993 (Avinash, John F. Sherrard University Professor of Economics at Princeton and Barry, Professor of economics and management at the yale school of
organization and management. "Thinking Stategically") After the first four races in the 1983 Americas Cup final Dennis Conners Liberty led 3-1 in a best-of-seven series. On the morning of the fifth race, c ases of champagne had been delivered to Libertys dock. And on their spectator yachy, the wives of the crew were wearing red-white-and-blue tops and shorts, in anticipation of having their picture taken after their husbands had prolonged the United States winning streak to 132 years. It was not to be. At the start, Liberty got off to a 37 -second lead when Australia II jumped the gun and had to recross the starting line. The Australian skipper, John Bertrand, tried to catch up by sailing way over to the left of the course in hopes of catching a wind shift. Dennis Connor chose to keep Liberty on the right-

Sailboat racing offers the chance to observe an interesting reversal of a follow the leader strategy. The leading sailboat usually copies the strategy of the trailing boat. When the follower tacks, so does the leader. The leader imitates the follower even when the follower is clearly pursuing a poor strategy. Why? Because in sailboat racing (unlike ballroom dancing)close doesnt count: only winning matters. If you have the lead, the surest way to stay ahead is to play monkey see, monkey do.* Stock-market analysts and economic forecasters are not immune to this copycat strategy. The leading forecasters have an incentive to follow the pack and produce predictions similar to everyone elses. This way people are unlikey to change their perception of these forecasters abilities. On the other hand, newcomers take the risky strategies: they tend to predict boom or doom. Usually they are wrong and are never heard of again, but now and again they are proven correct and move to the ranks of the famous. Industrial and technological competition offer further evidence. In the person-computer market, IBM is less known for its innovation than for its ability to bring standardized technology to the mass market. More new ideas have come from Apple, Sun, and other start-up companies. Risky innovations are their best and perhaps only chance of gaining market
hand side of the course. Bertrands gamble paid off. The wind shifted five degrees in Australia IIs path. Two races later, A ustralia II won the series. share. This is true not just of high-technology goods. Proctor and Gamble, the IBM of diapers, followed Kimberly Clarks innovation of resealable diaper tape, and recaptured its commanding market position. There are two ways to move second. You can imitate as soon as the other has revealed his approach (as in sailboat racing) or wait longer until the success or failure of the approach is known (as in computers). The longer wait is more advantageous in business because, unlike sports, the competition is usually not winner-take-all. As a result, market leaders will not follow the upstarts until they also believe in the merits of their course.

Green capitalism holds to the development of the capitalist economy, a view which is based on constant growth which creates ecological scarcities and environmental derogation.

AT: Gibson Graham

Gibson-Grahams critique of capitalocentrism re-entrenches capitalism and prevents revolutionary change. Poitevin 01 Ren Francisco Poitevin, Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology at the University of CaliforniaDavis, member of the Editorial Board of the Socialist Review, 2001 (The End of Anti-Capitalism As We Knew It: Reflections on Postmodern Marxism, Socialist Review, Available Online at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3952/is_200101/ai_n8932891/?tag=content;col1, Accessed 1107-2011)
My main point here is that throughout The Full Monty - and in J.K.

Gibson-Graham's review of the film as well - property relations get to keep ownership of the means of production and their profits, while working class communities continue to lap dance their way through "identification across difference" rather than doing union organizing. That this kind of argument can be presented not only as "noncapitalist" but also as Marxist thinking should be enough to demonstrate the political bankruptcy of this paradigm. It is also interesting that JK Gibson-Graham maintain that challenging their analysis of The Full Monty, or not endorsing the politics of the film, "is inherently conservative and capitalocentric."48 I disagree strongly . The politics advocated by J.K. Gibson-Graham
are never questioned or challenged. In the postmodern/post-Marxist "noncapitalist" world, corporations through their reading of The Full Monty

is nothing but liberal politics with post-structuralist delusions of

grandeur . It is one thing to say that we are at a political conjuncture in which the thing to do is to work hard for reform, not "revolution." But it is another thing to argue that revolutionary practice cannot happen on epistemological grounds, and that all we can do is make capitalism as user friendly as possible while obscuring and co-opting the Marxist tradition . J.K. Gibson-Graham's reading of The Full
Monty is

both liberal and reactionary. What the postmodern Marxist's reading of The Full Monty demonstrates is that in their

desire to get rid of "capitalocentrism" - the alleged obsession of Marxists with seeing "capitalism" everywhere - they end up reconfiguring and consolidating capitalism back in. In

their unreflective romanticizing of reform, and in their haughty contempt for style of postmodern/post-Marxism delivers what boils down to good old-fashioned liberalism: a mild, state-administered "economic justice" platform centered around individual private liberties, neatly packaged in postmodern gift wrapping . The bottom line is this: When one looks closely at what postmodern/post-Marxist theory actually offers, and after it is done "representing capitalism through the lens of overdetermination,"49 all one can strategize
revolutionary thinking and politics, J.K. Gibson-Graham's

about is how to make capitalism more "user friendly." Gone is the project of getting rid of it. Strangely enough, postmodern/ post-Marxists do not regard these positions as a surrender of the Marxist project at all, but rather, as the exact fulfillment of that commitment.50

The alternative REpoliticzes the way we think of the economy creating space for economic imaginaries that solve Gibson-Graham 03 (J.K. Gibson-Graham, Enabling Ethical Economies: Cooperativism and Class, Critical Sociology, Volume 29,
issue 2, 2003, http://crs.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/29/2/123.full.pdf+html)

the potentialities and possibilities of building sustainable community economies I have been concerned to challenge the way economy is thought and to identify what we are
As part of an ongoing project committed to exploring

up against when attempting to think differently (especially ethically) about the economic realm. One problem is that, in contrast to previous periods, the economy is no longer seen as a sphere of decision (Lemke Sustainability is referred to
here in terms of the inter-generational durability of local cultures, practices of sociality and emplaced livelihood strategies that support community economies. I have coined the term community economies to refer to those economic practices that are inected with ethical principles to do with family, community, culture and environment (often loosely dened but

With the resurgence of neo-liberalism in the second half of the 20th century we have seen renewed faith in the hidden (almost mystical) hand of the free market, and the active aspect of management associated with the term economy has been subordinated to a notion of systemic self-regulation. Naturalization of the view that we have no (longer a) role in making and managing the economy by which we live has had limiting effects on economic imaginaries. A reluctance to engage in economic experimentation because of its perceived futility, or for fear of repression by the all powerful economy, has become a form of unfreedom, a discursive enslavement, a refusal to explore economic power as unstable and uid, as potentially reversible strategic games between liberties that are always available (Foucault 1988:19; Hindess 1997:97-8). It is this depoliticization of the economic terrain that
strongly adhered to) that acknowledge the relational interdependence of all activities that constitute a society (Gibson 2002; Community Economies Collective 2001).

must be challenged if any space for enabling ethical economic practices is to be opened up . Another problem is the representation of the economy as capitalist. Deconstructing the hegemony of capitalocentrism involves representing the diversity of the complex unity we know as economy, that is, highlighting the multiple registers of value and modes of transaction that make up our heterogeneous economic world, sustaining livelihoods in communities around the world. The diverse modes of remunerating labor, appropriating and
distributing surplus and establishing commensurability in exchange, for example, all allow for specic enactments of economic freedom, some more circumscribed than others

individualism is not the only ethical principle involved. In cultural and environmental sustainability are actively shaping transactions and performances. I have been particularly interested in community economies in which the material well-being of people and the sustainability of the community are priority objectives. Indeed it is through articulating these ethical and political stances that community is called into being. I would like to argue that this project of deconstructing the hegemony of capitalism and elaborating multiple axes of economic diversity is an emancipatory project of repoliticizing the economy . It refuses to pose economic power as already distributed to
(Community Economies Collective 2001). As is increasingly apparent competitive a growing number of intentional and unintentional economies variously enacted ethics of social,

capitalist interests and opens up the possibility for non-capitalist practices to be the focus for an invigorated economic politics. It reinstates the importance of making and managing economy aspects of the meaning of the word that have been increasingly washed away by placing the politico-ethical decisions that make our economies at the center of analysis. Ernesto Laclau notes that The role of deconstruction isto reactivate the moment of decision that underlies any sedimented set of social relations. The political and ethical significance of this first
moment is that by enlarging the area of structural indeterminacy [eg of the economy] it enlarges also the area of responsibility that is, of the decision. (Laclau 1995:93, bracketed

A vision of the economy as diverse, multiply identified and complexly overdetermined and economic power as diffuse, segmented, and in motion opens up the possibility for local noncapitalist practices to be the focus for an invigorated economic politics.
comment added)

CPS

1NC
The United States federal government should construct the necessary transportation infrastructure for homeporting for a nuclear-powered fixed wing aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport. CVN Mystifies nuclear technology makes it inaccessible to the common person causes violent conflict ethically wrong MARILYN FRENCH, Leading Feminist, PHD @ HARVARD, assistant professor of English at the College of the Holy Cross, 1992, The War Against Women, PDF, KENTUCKY
Carol Cohn spent a summer studying with male experts in

nuclear strategy.1 To understand themand speak so they could understand hershe had to learn their language , one made up largely of invented words, acronyms impenetrable to most of us. Cohn found it a sexy language, offering the delight in power that comes from knowing things ordinary people dont know, that shows ones intimacy with the most secret, highest reaches of state policy. Appalled by her pleasure in this
language, she acknowledges it to suggest how seductive the power of such knowledge can be. She not only found its words fun to say, but was gratified at knowing the language of priests privy to god, designed to mystify and awe. Indeed, from its inception, nuclear science has used religious imagery. The inventors of the atomic bomb called its first test Trinity after the Holy Trinity, the united Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the male forces of Creation. As it exploded in its first test, its main inventor, Robert Oppenheimer, thought of Krishnas words to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita: I am become Death, the Shatterer of Worlds. And the men who today devise strategic doctrine call their community the nuclear priesthood.2 Nuclear scientists use another se t of imagesimages of birth, birth through the male as in male initiation rituals. Scientists at Los Alamos called the atom bomb Oppenheimers baby; those at Lawrence Livermore called the hydrogen bomb Tellers baby. Those who wanted to disparage Edward Teller argued that he was not the bombs father but its mother, and attributed fatherhood to Stanislaw Ulam, who had the all-important idea and inseminated Teller with it. Teller only carried it after that. A briefing officer, excitedly describing the technical capabilities of a new satellite system, added seif-effacingly, Well do the motherhood role telemetry, tracking, and controlthe maintenance. As in religious hierarchies, birth through the male produces only males. The perversity of patriarchal thinking is such that these men felt the bombs that wreaked such human horror on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were their babies, Little Boy and Fat Man. Cohn remarks that the bombs were not only the atomic scientists progeny, but emphatically male progeny: in early tests, before they were sure the bombs would work, the scientists expressed their anxiety by saying that they hoped the baby was a boy, not a girl that is, not a dud. After the success of the first test, General Leslie Groves cabled Secretary of War Henry Stimson: Doctor has just returned most enthusiastic and confident that the little boy is as husky as his big brother. The light in his eyes discernible from here to Highhold and I could have heard his screams from here to my farm. Stimson then wrote Churchill: Babies satisfactorily born. In 1952, after the hydrogen bomb (named Mike) tested successfully at Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands, Teller triumphantly telegraphed Los Alamos: Its a boy. Cohn comments: The entire history of the bomb project . . . seems permeated with imagery that confounds mans overwhelming technological power to destroy nature with the power to create.

The view of life as a

struggle for power generates a language in which life has no significance and only power matters . So nuclear scientists refer to the killing of human beings not on their own side as collateral damage. Military men, who adopted this parlance, used it
in their television appearances to describe Iraqis killed in the 199091 gulf war (whose actual number remains a state secret). Eighteenth-century physicians in Britains Royal Society began to use euphemisms

in writing up their experiments because simple language made clear the horrifying pain they were inflicting . This policy is now followed in every discipline that attacks, mutilates, and kills humans
(even those supposedly intended to help them, like medicine). The term collateral damage also suggests that human beings were not the targets of attack, but simply in the way of the important business. So defense analysts call the incineration of cities countervalue attacks. Cohns article was published in 1987, but we are all now familiar with some of the terminology she describes. We know that surgically clean strikes (shortened to surgical strikes) are counterforce attacks (attacks by weapons on weapons or militarily useful installations) that a re supposed to take out (accurately destroy) an opponents weapons or command centers without causing significant damage to anyth ing else. War is waged between weapons systems, not human beings, as if enemies sat at opposite sides of the globe playing video games. An MX missile carries ten warheads, each with the explosive power of 300475 kilotons of TNTa destructive power about 250400 times that of the bomb that leveled Hiroshima. This is the weapon Ronald Reagan dubbed the Peacekeeper. While the defense analysis community mockingly scorned his euphemism, they themselves call the MX a damage limitation weapon. They

also discuss clean bombs nuclear devices that work largely by fusion rather than fission and therefore release more energy not as radiation but
as blast, destructive explosive power. They are clean because they do not emit as much radiation, but they have a g reater potential to kill and destroy. Men have appropriated not just birth but womens work, using nursery and domestic images to mask the horror of what they do. They approve clean bombs and speak longingly of patting bombs and missiles. They named an electronic system designed to prevent the unauthorized firing of nuclear warheads

PAL

(permissive action links), a carefully constructed, friendly acronym ; they called an early version of an antiballistic missile system BAMBI, an acronym for ballistic missile boost intercept. They call the presidents Annual Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Memorandum, listing short- and long- range plans to produce new nuclear weapons, the shopping list. They choose from a menu of options when selecting targeting plans. Scientists call one model of nuclear attack the cookie cutter, and the pattern MIRVed missiles nuclear warheads make w hen they land a

footprint. Men do not drop nuclear bombs; they are delivered by a bus. They

do not use the terms nuclear bombs or warheads, but call them reentry vehicles or RVsas if they were recreational vehicles, trailers. Cohns summer seminar included nine other women. She
expected such highly educated, knowledgeable men, faced with ten women in their midst, to feel discomfort about their more macho expressions. But, she writes, she was wrong. They seemed innocent of feminist critique of male behavior and openly said that for the American military, nuc lear weapons were irresistible, because you get more bang for the buck. They told her that scientists would never seriously contemplate disarmament because disarmament is emasculation: to disarm is to get rid of all your stuff. One professor explained that the MX missile would not replace older, less accurate m issiles, but be placed in thesilos of the newest Minuteman missiles, because theyre in the nicest holeyoure not going to take the nicest missile you have and put it in a crummy hole. Scientists lectured on vertical erector launchers, thrust-to-weight ratios, soft lay-downs, deep penetration, and the comparative advantages of protracted versus spasm attacksdefined by one military adviser to the National Security Council as releasing 70 to 80 percent of our megatonnage in one orgasmic whump. They expressed serious concern about the need to harden our missiles and the need to face it, the Russians are a little harder than we are. Cohn found Air Force Magazines advertisements for new weapons a rival to Playboy in cataloging mens sexual anxieties and fantasies. Ads promote weapons as big sticks or penetrators, or for their cratering powers. When French military men do nuclear tests on the Mururoa Atoll in the South P acific, they give every crater they gouge out of the earth a womans name. Phallic imagery is common in descriptions of nuclear blasts. Cohn cites one by journalist William Laurence, who witnessed the bombing of Nagasaki: Then, just when it appeared as though the thing had settled down into a state of permanence, there came shooting out of the top a giant mushroom that increased the size of the pillar to a total of 45,000 feet. The mushroom top was even more alive than the pillar, seething and boiling in a white fury of creamy foam, sizzling upward and then descending earthward, a thous and geysers rolled intb one.3 A Pentagon target analyst explained that plans for limited nuclear war were doomed because its a pissing contestyou gotta expect them to use everything theyve got. When India exploded a nuclear bomb, a professor remarked that she had lost her virginity; when New Zealand parliamentarian Marilyn Waring forced her government bar nuclear -armed or

nuclear-

powered warships from

its

ports , a retired U.S. Air Force general, Ross Milton, wrote an angry column in Air Force Magazine called

Nuclear Virginity . Cohn found the world of nuclear weaponry pervaded by friendship and even romance: enemies
exchange warheads; one missile takes out another; weapons systems can marry up; the wires linking warning and response mechanisms allow coupling. But this sex and romance aim at murder. If one of ones own warheads kills another of ones own warheads, that is fratricide. And while these men devoted considerable discussion to vulnerability and survivability, they were concerned

not with the vulnerability and survival of people but of weapons systems. Cohn quotes two descriptions of the aftermath of a nuclear attack. One, by Hisako Matsubara, who was a child
in Kyoto when the atomic bomb was dropped, is based on survivors memories: Everything was black, had vanished into the black dust, was destroyed. Only the flames that were beginning to lick their w.y up had any color. From the dust that was like a fog, figures began to loom up, black, hairless, faceless. They screamed with voices that were no longer human. Their screams drowned out the groans rising everywhere from the rubble, groans that seemed to rise from the very earth

in nukespeak , by an Army general on the National Security Council during the Carter administration: You have to have ways to maintain communication in a nuclear environment, a situation bound to include EMP blackout, brute force damage to systems, a heavy jamming environment, and so on.5 The most appalling and profound truth about all this is that these
itself. 4 The second is

men are not even concerned with their own survival. Only power matters: it is god, an exalted disembodied force more important than humankind . It is difficult to plumb such absurd and perverse thinking. Cohn stresses that
mens reference point

in technostrategic discourse

is not themselves or

even white men, is not human beings at all;

than because

it is the weapons.

These men call human death collateral damage less

to conceal human suffering

human

death is collateral to what matters to them weapons themselves . But, Cohn points out, when men create a discourse that excludes human life in its calculus, it is impossible to include humans and illegitimate to expect the discourse to reflect human concerns . She realized that knowledge of this language did not enable one to introduce such concerns or influence political decisions. She even questioned whether the discourse was part of the process by which political decisions are made. Cohn believes that technostrategic discourse functions as a gloss, an ideological curtain disguising the real reasons for political decisions. It is however likely that those decisions are based on the same assumptions, the same values, as the discourse . Terrifyingly.

2NC Overview
Its bad
William Chaloupka, Political Science @ Montana, 1992, Knowing Nukes: The Politics and Culture of the Atom. Pg 21-22
An oppositional politics, fully capable of problematizing this (hyper-) exuberant nuclearism, is possible on bases other than such suspect categories as euphemism, survival, unspeakability, and numbing. Through out this book, I am trying to reposition antinuclearism within such a defensible political practice. At the very least, this implies an intellectual project: to paraphrase Foucault, there

is a struggle over

issues of knowledge, set off by nuclear criticism. The political

mood of the

language- and-politics position is well framed by

nuclear criticism. More precisely, a political mood could yet form, one that would contrast sharply with an exiting nuclear opposition that in the United States, has adopted a paradoxical structure, as if driven to mirror that paradoxes of nukes themselves. Antinuke talk has been ponderousso responsible and serious that it just obviously defeats itself, and must invent the defense that people dont really like to talk about nuclear war very much. Paradoxically, opponents then test that humorlessness by asking

citizens to become independent entrepreneurs of risk, weighing the likelihood and amplitude of possible disasters. It should
not be surprising that such a politics works only intermittently if at all. To summarize: as obvious a goal as survival may be, it nonetheless carries with it a series of code and a rhetoric. Survival implies a global unquestionable project- a faith really- and it therefore brings along baggage we might not wish to carry. Following Foucaults model of the specific intellectual, intervening in the relations of power and knowledge, we can identify some of this baggage. When we approach survival (and humanism, and liberalism in general) from that angle, we see some primary terms

becoming far more problematic than we may have understood. The

unspeakability of nukes part of a characteristic liberal injunction to speak turns out, instead, to point to a problem with the whole scheme of representation . Furthermore, our concern with technological dependence and accidents turns out to beg important issues of agency.
that accumulation, the injunction to aid survival and counter In the wake of these discoveries, we should at least suspect that it is disciplinary powermore than technology, or reticence to speak or a too-awesome topicthat has been accumulating. And in the face of

unspeakability by simply canceling euphemism is obviously just too limited a response. In upcoming chapters, I will try to suggest a different sort of opposition, informed by the
theoretical considerations outlined above. Even if principled renunciations of the nukein the name of humanity or survivalhave misfired, other interventions may be possible, may even be better.

2NC Solvency
Counterplan solves the aff it is more specific then the plan without using an acronym more useful for the common person which is congress no risk of a solvency deficit Navy accepts usage of counterplan John Patch, U.S. Navy, Commander, January 2010 Vol. 136, "Fortress at Sea? The Carrier Invulnerability
Myth", http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-01/fortress-sea-carrier-invulnerability-myth, KENTUCKY
The recently renewed debate over aircraft carrier requirements has focused mainly on the factors of cost and utility. These issues notwithstanding, analysts often overlook or understate the carriers' inherent vulnerabilities. Regardless of the number of carriers national leadership decides to maintain, because they remain the

U.S. Navy's preeminent capital ship and a symbol of American global power and prestige, they are a potential key target for both unconventional and conventional adversaries. Carrier proponents, however , universally
seem to

accept

on faith alone the premise that a

nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

(CVN) is essentially

invulnerable. Yet an intelligent adversary could potentially exploit carrier weaknesses. The sudden, unexpected loss of

a CVN , especially by

unanticipated asymmetric means, would shock both the military establishment and the American psyche-perhaps being a military equivalent to the Twin Towers' collapse on 9/11. The truth is, a deployed aircraft carrier is more vulnerable to mission kill than is commonly believed, and the Department of Defense should consider efforts to prevent or mitigate such an exigency.

2NC No UQ / Spill over

Yes uniqueness Ashley Ann Hinck, Creighton University, Summer 2007, The Forensic of Pi Delta Kappa, Vol. 92, Iss. 2,
A Rhetorical Analysis of the Use of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistans Extreme Rhetoric to Achieve Reconciliation, p. 1 Every year, various debate communities devote much time and energy to developing arguments focused on specific topic areas, yet we seldom take the time to view each seasons research as opportunities for the study of argumentation. Every student considers a set of arguments within the context of debate rounds, evaluating the arguments based on their ability to win or lose debate rounds; however, these debate arguments extend into the sphere of public policy. These arguments for or against policies have significant impacts on societies across the globe, creating an excellent context in which to evaluate how the arguments work in the real world.

AT: Perm do the CP

C - Language is functional UH, University of Hertfordshire School of Combined Studies, no date, Describing and Analysing
Language, http://www.uefap.com/courses/baecc/sfl/intro.htm
The approach taken for this description and analysis is Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL). This analytical approach is mainly taken from the work of Michael Halliday, in particular the model of language set out in An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985, 1994 and Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004), following on from Malinowski (1923), Firth (1957) and Hymes (1967) (Halliday & Hasan, 1985, pp. 5-9). Systemic-functional linguistics has a number of beliefs that make it particularly useful as a basis for developing such a description: * Language That is, language

is functional. is the way it is because of the meanings it makes. Resources available within the systems of semantics, grammar and vocabulary are utilised in specific ways to make specific meanings. * It is a theory of language in context, and suggests that language can only be understood in relation to the context in which it is used. So different purposes for using language and different contexts result in different texts. The construction of language texts in turn impacts on the context. There is thus a two-way relationship between text and context. * The process of using language is a semiotic process, a process of making meanings by choosing. * The theory
focuses on language at the level of the whole text. This theory differs from most other approaches to language study, which offer systematic analyses of language only up to the level of sentence, and provides little guidance to the language learner, who needs to know about structure, organisation and development in connected oral discourse and written texts.

allowing them to sever means accepting CVN in the plan text is acceptable that means they could do any of 22 things TFD, 12/29/12, http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CVN, KENTUCKY
CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN CVN Courtroom View Network (website) Card Verification Number (on the back of a credit card) Columbia Video Network (New York, NY) Charpy V-Notch (welding) Convene Customer Value Network Clovis, NM, USA (Airport Code) Calibration Verification Number Certified Vascular Nurse Crownvic.net (automobile site) Central Venous Nutrition (intravenous feeding) Cardiac Vascular Nurse Canon Vietnam Co., Ltd. (Vietnam) Cass Valley North Club de Voile de Nantua (French sailing club) Christian Values Network (online shopping service) Collaborative Visibility Network Club Vitren de Natation (French swimming club) Cinma Vido Nantais (French film club) Carrier, Fixed Wing Aircraft, Nuclear (aircraft carrier type; US Navy) Convention Vie et Nature (French: Life and Nature Convention) Cercle de la Voile de Neuchtel (Swiss sailing club)

Violates resolved Rhymezone Dictionary, 2008, http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=resolve

Definition s of resolve :
meeting; agreed to by a vote

* noun: the trait of being resolute;

firmness of purpose

* noun: a formal expression by a

* verb:

make clearly visible

Fairness plan gets rolled back Justia, 1 (US Supreme Court Center, Clarity in Criminal Statutes: The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine,
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/54-void-for-vagueness-doctrine.html, KENTUCKY) the Court voided for vagueness a criminal statute providing that a person was a "gangster" and subject to fine or imprisonment if he was without lawful employment, had been either convicted at least
For instance, three times for disorderly conduct or had been convicted of any other crime, and was "known to be a member of a gang of two or more persons."

The Court observed that neither common law nor the statute gave the words

"gang" or "gangster"

definite meaning,

that the enforcing agencies and courts were free to construe the terms broadly or narrowly, and that the phrase

"known to be a member" was ambiguous.

The statute was held void, and the Court refused to allow specification

of details in the particular indictment to save it because it was the statute, not the indictment, that prescribed the rules to govern conduct.986

Blake

1NC LNG DA
US LNG exports destroy the Russian economy. RT, 10/24/2012. Russia Today. Russia increasingly worried about US shale revolution,
http://rt.com/business/news/russia-shale-gas-usa-110/. Russias President Putin urged the countrys gas monopoly Gazprom to revise its export policy, as the shale revolution and the development of liquefied natural gas will seriously eat into the countrys export revenues. Experts agree that alternative commodities have already started to reshape the market, with the US posing tough competition to Russia. I ask Gazprom to report on the key principles of its export policy at the next meeting, and the Energy Ministry should present an adjusted general development scheme for the gas industry until 2030, as well as the Eastern Gas Program, said President Vladimir Putin at a meeting of the presidential commission for the fuel and energy sector on Tuesday. Such new players *in the gas market] as the United States and Canada have already started to move. In the US, new technologies allow for profitable shale gas productionPoliticians, experts and businesses are talking about a real "shale revolution," Putin added. The US is a serious rival to Russia in a gas market, as the countrys reserves of shale gas stand at 24trln cubic metres, compared to 30trln cubic metres of traditional gas reserves in Russia. Given that shale commodities are really booming, especially in the north of the US, the country can outpace Russia in the world energy market in another decade, Valery Nesterov, energy analyst at Sberbank Investment Research, told Business RT. For the US economy itself the shale oil and gas industry is a real locomotive, providing an additional 3.5mln jobs, according to Sberbank Investment Research expert. Should a shale revolution really take place, itll seriously reshape the world energy market, where traditional energy sources could be replaced by cheaper shale commodities. This will hit Russias budget hard, as oil and gas revenues provide for about 80% of the entire Russian budget. Thats why its very important for Russia now to have official information and uptodate data about extraction of shale gas in the US, which can be done by getting a report from the US Department of Energy, RBC daily quotes its sources close to Russias Accounts Chamber as saying . Another new trend has also long been underwaythe rising trade in liquefied natural gas (LNG), Putin said. "We are simply obligated to take these trends into consideration, to clearly imagine how the situation will develop not just in the next two to three years, but throughout the upcoming decade," Russian President concluded. Active extraction of shale gas in the US and the analogous intentions in Europe could harm Russian exports because of the high competition from the suppliers of the alternative fuel, sources from Russias Accounts Chamber told RBC daily. Gazprom told RBC it didnt plan to develop any projects dealing with extraction of shale gas. In the mid-term Russia is due to remain the biggest gas exporter to Europe, with European countries remaining a key consumer of Russian gas, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in October. The US gas exports will soon equal a third of that from Russia, with the Asian demand growing really fast. By 2035 the US could become the leader in the world gas market, pushing Russia into 2nd place, the IEA said in May this year. According to the Agencys forecast, Russia could produce about 784bln cubic meters of gas, which will compare to the US figure of 821bln cubic metres. Another Asian giantChinashould come third, where extraction of gas is forecast to skyrocket 5 fold during the next 25 years. Australia, India, Indonesia, as well as Africa and the Middle East are also expected to come to the forefront of the world gas market. However, Europe is set to suffer as growing demand is expected to be coupled by shrinking extraction, the IEA concluded.

Nuclear war
Filger 9 (Sheldon, Author and Writer @ the Huffington Post, Former VP for Resource Development at New Yorks United Way, Russian
Economy Faces Disastrous Free Fall Contraction, http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/356)

In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nations history, are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russias economic crisis will endanger the nations political stability, achieved
at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading

their yachts and executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash. Should economic collapse is not out of the question, the

the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be
possible that U.S. President Barack Obamas national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political instability in the world. During

the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the nations nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It may be
that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.

Exports lead to gas cartel turns solvency Korin, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security co-director, 9-13-12
(Anne, IAGS is an energy security think tank, she is also an adviser to the US Energy Security Council, Should the U.S. Export Natural Gas, 9-13-12, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444226904577561300198957854.html, accessed 926-12) PM
But as

LNG plays a larger part in international natural-gas trading and the commodity becomes fungible, the other gas giantsRussia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirateswill have every incentive to concretize their discussions on forming an OPEC-like natural-gas cartel. They'll be able to restrict supply to the market and counterbalance the U.S. That will drive the newly global natural-gas priceand thus prices in the U.S.higher than it would have gone otherwise. That will certainly benefit those who own and sell the gas, but through higher electricity and chemical prices, it would overall be a drain on the economy.

The manufacturing sector is improving now thats key to the economy. ESA 12 (Economics & Statistics Administration of the US Department of Commerce, 5-7-12, The Benefits of Manufacturing Jobs,
http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/benefits-manufacturing-jobs) Executive Summary The role

of the manufacturing sector in the U.S. economy is more prominent than is suggested solely by its output or number of workers. It is a cornerstone of innovation in our economy: manufacturing firms fund most domestic corporate research and development (R&D), and the resulting innovations and productivity growth improve our standard of living. Manufacturing also drives U.S. exports and is crucial for a strong national defense. The current economic recovery has witnessed a welcome return in manufacturing job growth. Since its January 2010 low to April 2012, manufacturing employment has expanded by 489,000 jobs or 4 percent1 the strongest cyclical rebound since the dual recessions in the early 1980s. From mid-2009 through the end of February 2012, the number of job openings surged by over 200 percent, to 253,000 openings. 2 Coupled with attrition in the coming years from Baby Boomer retirements, this bodes well for continued hiring opportunities in the manufacturing sector.3 The rebound in manufacturing is important, not only as a sign of renewed strength, but also because manufacturing jobs are often cited as good jobs: they pay well, provide good benefits, and manufacturing workers are less likely to quit than workers in other private sector industries.4 In fact, our analysis finds evidence in support of these claims. Specifically, this report shows that: On average, hourly wages and salaries for manufacturing jobs were $29.75 an hour in 2010 compared to $27.47 an hour for non-manufacturing jobs. Total hourly compensation, which includes employer-provided benefits,

was $38.27 for workers in manufacturing jobs and $32.84 for workers in non-manufacturing jobs, a 17
percent premium. After controlling for demographic, geographic, and job characteristics, manufacturing jobs experienced a significant 7 percent manufacturing wage premium. In other words, all else being equal, workers in manufacturing tend to earn 7 percent more per hour than their counterparts in other private industries. Like

manufacturing workers, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workers are catalysts for innovation in the economy. Not surprisingly, there is considerable overlap between the STEM and manufacturing workforces, with nearly one-third of college educated manufacturing workers
holding a STEM job. The educational attainment of the manufacturing workforce is rising steadily. Today, more than half of manufacturing jobs are held by persons with at least some college education. Manufacturing workers are more likely than other workers to have significant, highlyvalued employer-provided benefits, including medical insurance and retirement benefits. Taking these into account increases the manufacturing compensation premium to 15 percent. The size of the premium, including or excluding benefits, increases consistently with educational attainment of a worker. Furthermore, the compensation premium has risen over the past decade across all levels of educational attainment. In sum, manufacturing

jobs provide benefits to workers with higher overall compensation than other sectors, and to the economy through innovation that boosts our nations standard of living .

Manufacturing renaissance coming unlimited exports trades off thats key to recovery Blitz 12 (George, VP of Energy at Dow Chemical Company, Manufacturing Key to Natural Gas Value, 4-19-12,
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/what-should-us-policy-be-on-en.php,)

While the nation struggles to find solutions to the current economic crisis, there has been a sharp focus on the country's newly abundant supply of natural gas as a potential cure---and rightly so. However, those that advocate unlimited natural gas exports are taking a short-sighted approach, missing the tremendous opportunity to leverage domestic natural gas to spur a manufacturing Renaissance in the U.S. Already the prospect of advantaged and abundant U.S. gas has sparked domestic investment in many manufacturing industries, such as petrochemicals, fertilizers, glass, aluminum and steel. These investments will convert natural gas to products for export that deliver up to eight-times greater value than simply exporting the gas itself because American manufacturers use natural gas both as a fuel source and as a raw material to create highvalue products. This initial use of natural gas begins a chain reaction that stimulates investment, creates jobs and strengthens the economy well beyond what gas production and export alone can achieve.
Take the U.S. chemical industry for example. The American Chemistry Council estimates that a 25 percent increase in the production of shale gas and ethane (a shale gas derivative) would create more than 400,000 new jobs along the entire value chain, $16 million in investment, more than $130 billion in economic output and $4.4 billion in new tax revenues. However, supply and demand must be balanced in a way that allows gas producers to maintain supply at stable, globally competitive prices that spur manufacturing growth and deliver reasonable costs for all consumers. Manufacturers

may be the most price-sensitive users of natural gas and a rush to artificially create demand or constrain supplies would destroy the competitive advantage abundant, affordable domestic natural gas is creating for the U.S. Policies that artificially accelerate demand, especially in-elastic demand, upset the natural supply-and-demand balance necessary to keep natural gas prices affordable for U.S. manufacturers. This includes unlimited exportation of natural gas. Fair and free trade must be supported in a
nationally prudent manner. A sound energy policy that promotes U.S. economic growth is needed for us to realize the tremendous opportunity domestic natural gas presents. Alternatively,

exporting amounts of natural gas that drive prices closer to the

global price of crude oil will inhibit this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore U.S. manufacturing
and miss a golden opportunity to create high-paying middle class jobs and bring back economic prosperity.

Energy production undermines manufacturing Dutch disease Holland, 6-7-12 (Andrew, Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate Policy at the American Security Project, a non-partisan think tank
based in Washington, DC, Will Dutch Disease Follow-on the American Energy Boom?, http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/06/07/will-dutch-disease-follow-on-the-american-energy-boom/)

An ongoing discussion among some of us analysts at Consumer Energy Report has been about whether having natural resources like oil or coal is actually beneficial to a country (see Are Countries With Vast
Oil Resources Blessed or Cursed?, Oil Dependence Tom Friedmans False Narrative, and Oil Easy to Produce, But Not Easy to Buy). The

argument which Ive made is that a

boom in natural resources production can cover up some short-sighted economic policies; in effect, the earnings from producing oil mean that countries do not have to invest in their education or produce their own manufactured goods. The other side of the argument is that it can only be a
good thing for new resources to be found. Leaving aside the question of whether natural resource wealth undermines institutions or causes corruption (and there is good evidence of a resource curse among developing countries) there

is one thing that increased production of oil does, once it gets to be a big enough sector of the economy: it pushes up the value of that countrys currency. All else equal (as economists always have to say), new production of natural resources strengthens the domestic currency. Thats because those resources are either exported or are used to replace imports. Dutch Disease Phenomenon Now I should mention that I like a strong dollar, personally: it means I can afford to
travel abroad more, and buy more when I get there. It also means that French wine (for example) becomes cheaper relative to Californian wine. I like French wine, and would welcome being able to buy more. However, that shows the

problem with having a strong currency it undermines domestic manufacturing and production (of Californian wine, in this example) by driving up prices of American-made goods and services. This phenomenon is called Dutch Disease.
Coined by The Economist in 1977 to describe how finding natural gas in the North Sea in 1959 affected the Netherlands econom y over the ensuing decades. The

symptoms of the disease are when commodity exports push up the value of a nations currency, making other parts of the economy less competitive. This leads to a current-account deficit, which makes the economy even more dependent upon the commodity. The disease is especially pernicious for commodities like oil, coal, and natural gas because these industries are very capital-intensive, and actually do not generate that many jobs. There are two major industrialized countries that have undergone commodities booms over the past decade: Canada and Australia. They are both showing signs of suffering from Dutch Disease, with the Canadian dollar increasing in value vs. the American dollar (Canadas #1 trading partner by far) by over 50% in the last ten years, and the Australian dollar increased in value compared to world currency rates by almost 70% in the past decade. Exports vs.
Domestic Manufacturing Canadas boom, related to the exploitation and exports of Albertas Oil Sands, has brought boom times to the resource-rich areas of Western Canada. However, an article in the Global Post highlights how the

boom is dividing Canada: Western politicians are pushing for more oil-centered exports, while politicians in Ontario and Quebec, Canadas traditional manufacturing heartland, are saying that increased oil exports have undercut their ability to manufacture. The article says: The debate was reignited last month by Tom Mulcair, leader of the federal New Democratic Party, the main opposition to the ruling Conservative government. The high dollar , he said, has hollowed out the manufacturing sector and cost a half-million jobs. Australia too, is having problems with its currency. Steve LeVine writes in EnergyWire that A Cautionary Tale for U.S. Energy Policy Unfolds in the Land Down Under (paywalled). While Australias boom is not related to oil, it is exports of coal and iron ore much of it exported to fuel Chinas dramatic economic expansion as well as becoming an important new exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Levine writes: Australias dollar has surged 69 percent in value in the past decade, cutting into tourism and eroding the competitiveness of its manufactured products. Its manufacturing base has shrunk by almost 100,000 jobs over the past four years, according to government figures.

Kills small business outweighs their offense Glaeser,7-11-12(Edward, Harvard Econ professor, What the U.S. Can Learn From Australias Coal Mines,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-11/what-the-u-s-can-learn-from-australia-s-coal-mines.html,)

A recent paper I co-wrote with William Kerr and Sari Pekkala Kerr examined the long-run impact of mining across the U.S. Fifty years ago, the economist Benjamin Chinitz noted that New York appeared even then to be more resilient than Pittsburgh. He argued that New Yorks garment industry, with its small setup costs, had engendered a culture of entrepreneurship that spilled over into new industries. Pittsburgh, because of its coal mines, had the huge U.S. Steel Corp. (X), which trained company [people] men with neither the ability nor the inclination to start some new venture. A body of healthy literature now documents the

connection between economic success and measures of local entrepreneurship, such as the share of employment in startups and an abundance of smaller companies. Our new paper documents Chinitzs insight that mineral wealth historically led to big companies, not entrepreneurial clusters. In Australia, iron ore and coal are mined by giant corporations such as Rio Tinto Plc and BHP Billiton Ltd., and giant enterprises typically work best with other big companies. Across U.S. metropolitan areas, we found that historical mining cities had fewer small companies and fewer startups, even today in sectors unrelated to mining or manufacturing, and even in the Sunbelt. These mining cities were also experiencing less new economic activity. Low Taxes Australias economic future depends on using its mineral wealth wisely, following the example of
Iowa farmers who once used their corn profits to fund high schools. Yet Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia, was ousted in a backdoor political coup in 2010 partially because of his support for an extra mining tax. Im against almost all industry-specific taxes, but the share of miners resource profits returned to the Australian government in the form of taxes and royalties fell from about 40 percent in 2001 to less than 20 percent seven years later. It

is a fiction that U.S. economic woes could be solved if only the nation adopted a drill, baby, drill attitude toward natural resources. Less than 0.6 percent of American jobs are in natural-resource extraction. Even a vast increase in drilling employment would have a trivial impact on U.S. jobs. Oil prices are set in the world market, so American production can do little to radically decrease the global price of petroleum. The wealth that comes out of the ground is a shortterm windfall, not a long-term source of economic growth. The U.S. and Australia should both recognize that their futures depend on training smart, innovative entrepreneurs and reducing the barriers that limit their success. *Gender Modified

Manu k2 econ and advanced R&D Lind 12 (Policy director of New Americas Economic Growth Program and a co-founder of the New America Foundation (Michael, Value
Added: Americas Manufacturing Future, http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Lind,%20Michael%20and%20Freedman,%20Joshua%20-%20NAF%20%20Value%20Added%20America%27s%20Manufacturing%20Future.pdf )

Manufacturing, R&D and the U.S. Innovation Ecosystem Perhaps the greatest contribution of manufacturing to the U.S. economy as a whole involves the disproportionate role of the manufacturing sector in R&D . The expansion in the global market for high-value-added services has allowed the U.S. to play to its strengths by expanding its trade surplus in services, many of them linked to manufacturing, including R&D, engineering, software production and finance. Of these services, by far the most important is R&D . The United States has long led the world in R&D. In 1981, U.S. gross domestic expenditure on R&D was more than three times as large as that of any other country in the world. And the U.S. still
leads: in 2009, the most recent year for which there is available data, the United States spent more than 400 billion dollars. European countries spent just under 300 billion dollars combined, while China spent about 150 billion dollars.14 In the United States, private sector manufacturing is the largest source of R&D. The private sector itself accounts for 71 percent of total R&D in the United States, and although U.S. manufacturing accounts for only 11.7 percent of GDP in 2012, the manufacturing sector accounts for 70 percent of all R&D spending by the private sector in the U.S.15 And

R&D and

innovation are inextricably connected : a National Science Foundation survey found that 22 percent of manufacturers had introduced product innovations and the same percentage introduced process innovations in the period 2006-2008, while only 8 percent of nonmanufacturers reported innovations of either kind.16 Even as the manufacturing industry in the United States underwent major changes and suffered severe job losses during the last decade, R&D spending continued to follow a general upward growth path.
employed directly or indirectly by manufacturing companies; for example, A disproportionate share of workers involved in R&D are

the US manufacturing sector employs more than a

third of U.S. engineers. 17 This means that manufacturing provides much of the demand for the U.S. innovation ecosystem, supporting large numbers of scientists and engineers
who might not find employment

if R&D were offshored along with production. Why America Needs the Industrial Commons Manufacturing

creates an industrial commons, which spurs growth in multiple sectors of the economy through linked industries. An industrial commons is a base of shared physical facilities and intangible knowledge shared by a number of firms. The term commons comes from communallyshared pastures or fields in premodern Britain. The industrial commons in particular in
the manufacturing sector includes not only large companies but also small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), which employ 41 percent of the

American manufacturing workforce and account for 86 percent of all manufacturing establishments
in the U.S. Suppliers

of materials, component parts, tools, and more are all

interconnected ; most of the time, Harvard Business School professors Gary Pisano and Willy Shih point out, these linkages are geographic because of the ease of interaction and knowledge transfer between firms.18 Examples of industrial commons surrounding manufacturing are evident in the United States, including the I-85 corridor from Alabama to Virginia and upstate New York.19 Modern economic scholarship emphasizes the importance of geographic agglomeration effects and co-location synergies. 20 Manufacturers and researchers alike have long noted the symbiotic relationship that occurs when manufacturing and R&D are located near each other: the manufacturer benefits from the innovation, and the researchers are better positioned to understand where innovation can be found and to test new ideas. While some forms of knowledge can be easily recorded and transferred, much know-how in industry is tacit
knowledge. This valuable tacit knowledge base can be damaged or destroyed by the erosion of geographic linkages, which in turn shrinks the pool of scientists and engineers in the national innovation ecosystem

. If an advanced manufacturing core is not retained, then

the economy stands to lose not only the manufacturing industry itself but also the geographic synergies of the industrial commons, including R&D . Some have warned that this is already the case: a growing share of
R&D by U.S. multinational corporations is taking place outside of the United States.21 In particular, a number of large U.S. manufacturers have opened up or expanded R&D facilities in China over the last few years.22 Next Generation Manufacturing

A dynamic manufacturing sector in the

U.S. is as important as ever . But thanks to advanced manufacturing technology and technology-enabled integration of manufacturing and services, the very nature of manufacturing is changing, often in radical ways. What will the next generation of manufacturing look
like? In 1942, the economist Joseph Schumpeter declared that the process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. By cre ative destruction, Schumpeter did not mean the rise and fall of firms competing in a technologically-static marketplace. He referred to a process

of industrial mutation if I may use that biological termthat incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating the new one. He noted that these
revolutions are not strictly incessant; they occurred in discrete rushes that are separated from each other by spaces of comparative quiet. The process as a whole works incessantly, however, in the sense that there is always either revolution or absorption of the results of rev olution.23 As Schumpeter and others have observed, technological

innovation tends to be clustered in bursts or waves, each dominated by one or a few transformative technologies that are sometimes called general purpose technologies. Among the most world-transforming general purpose technologies of recent centuries have been the steam engine, electricity, the internal combustion engine, and information technology.24 As epochal as these earlier technology-driven innovations in manufacturing processes and business models proved to be, they are rapidly being superseded by new technologydriven changes as part of the never-ending process of Schumpeterian industrial mutation. The latest wave of innovation in industrial technology has been termed advanced manufacturing.
The National Science and Technology Council of the Executive Office of the President defines advanced manufacturing as a fam ily of activities that (a)

depend on the use and coordination of information, automation, computation, software, sensing, and networking, and/or (b) make use of cutting edge materials and emerging capabilities enabled by the physical and biological sciences, for example, nanotechnology , chemistry, and biology. It involves both
new ways to manufacture existing products and the manufacture of new products emerging from new advanced technologies.25 Alr eady computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) programs, combined with computer numerical control (CNC), allow precision manufacturing from complex designs, eliminating many wasteful trials and steps in finishing. CNC is now ubiquitous in the manufacturing sector and much of the employment growth occurring in the sector requires CNC skills or training. Information technology has allowed for enterprise resource planning (ERP) and other forms of enterprise software to connect parts of the production process (both between and within a firm), track systems, and limit waste when dealing with limited resources. Other areas in which advanced manufacturing will play a role in creating new products and sectors and changing current ones

are:

Supercomputing.

Americas global leadership in technology depends in part on whether the U.S. can compete with Europe and Asia in the race

to develop exascale computing, a massive augmentation of computer calculating power that has the potential to revolutionize predictive sci ences from

meteorology to economics. According to the Advanced Sc ientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC), If the U.S. chooses to be a follower rather than a leader in exascale computing, we must be willing to cede leadership in industries including aerospace, automobiles, energy, health care, novel material development, and information technology.26

Robotics : The long-delayed promise of robotics is coming closer to fulfillment. Google and other firms

and research consortiums are testing robotic cars, and Nevada recently amended its laws to permit autonomous automobiles.27 Amazon is experimenting with the use of robots in its warehouses.28 Nanotechnology may permit manufacturing at extremely small scales including the molecular and atomic levels.29 Nanotechnology is also a key research component in the semiconductor indusmanutry, as government funding is sponsoring projects to create a new switch capable of supplanting current semiconductor technology.30 Photonics or optoelectronics, based on the conversion of information carried by electrons to photons and back, has potential applications in sectors as diverse as telecommunications, data storage, lighting and consumer electronics. Biomanufacturing is the use of biological processes or living organisms to create inorganic structures, as well as food, drugs and fuel. Researchers at MIT have genetically modified a virus that generates cobalt oxide nanowires for silicon chips.31 Innovative materials include artificial metamaterials with novel properties. Carbon nanotubes, for example, have a strength-to-weight ratio that no other material can match.32

Advanced manufacturing using these and other cuttingedge technologies is

not only creating new products and new methods of production but is also transforming familiar products like automobiles.
The rapid growth in electronic and software content in automobiles, in forms like GPS-based guidance systems, information and entertainment technology, anti-lock brakes and engine control systems, will continue. According to Ford, around 30 percent of the value of one of its automobiles is comprised by intellectual property, electronics and software. In the German automobile market, electronic content as a share of production costs is expected to rise from 20-30 percent in 2007 to 50 percent by 2020.33

Advanced manufacturing technology makes war obsolete its the ultimate deterrent Paone 09 (66th Air Base Wing Public Affairs for the US Air Force, Chuck, 8-10-09, Technology convergence could prevent war, futurist
says, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500) The convergence of "exponentially advancing technologies" will form a "super-intelligence" so formidable that it could avert war, according to one of the world's leading futurists. Dr. James Canton, CEO and chairman of the Institute for Global Futures, a San Francisco-based think tank, is author of the book "The

Extreme Future" and an adviser to leading companies, the military and other government agencies. He is consistently listed among the world's leading
speakers and has presented to diverse audiences around the globe. He will address the Air Force Command and Control Intelligence, Survelliance and Reconnaissance Symposium, which will be held Sept. 28 through 30 at the MGM Grand Hotel at Foxwoods in Ledyard, Conn., joining Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and a bevy of other government and industry speakers. He offered a sneak preview of his symposium presentation and answered various questions about the future of technology and warfare in early August. " The

superiority of convergent technologies will prevent war," Doctor Canton said, claiming

their power would present an overwhelming deterrent to potential adversaries . While saying that the U.S. will build these super systems faster and better than other nations, he acknowledged that a new arms race is already under way. "It will be a new MAD for the 21st century," he said, referring to the Cold War-era acronym for Mutually Assured
Destruction, the idea that a nuclear first strike would trigger an equally deadly response. It's commonly held that this knowledge has essentially prevented any rational state from launching a nuclear attack. Likewise, Doctor Canton said he believes rational nation states, considering this imminent technology explosion, will see the futility of nation-on-nation warfare in the near future. Plus there's

the "socio-economic linking of the global market system." "The fundamental macroeconomics on the planet favor peace, security, capitalism and prosperity," he said. Doctor Canton projects that nations, including those not currently allied, will work together in using these smart technologies to prevent non-state actors from engaging in disruptive and deadly acts. As a futurist, Doctor Canton and his team study and predict many things, but their main area of expertise -- and the one in which he's personally most interested -- is advanced and emerging technology.
"I see that as the

key catalyst of strategic change on the planet, and it will be for the

next 100 years," he said. He focuses on six specific technology areas: "nano, bio, IT, neuro, quantum and robotics;" those he expects to converge in so powerful a way. Within the information technology arena, Doctor Canton said systems must create "meaningful data," which can be validated and acted upon.
"Knowledge engineering for the analyst and the warfighter is a critical competency that we need to get our arms around," he said. " Having

an avalanche of data is not going to be helpful."

Having the right data is. "There's no way for the human

operator to look at an infinite number of data streams and extract meaning," he said. "The question then is: How

do we

augment the human user with advanced artificial intelligence, better software presentation and better visual frameworks, to create a system that is situationally aware and can provide decision options for the human operator, faster than the human being can? " He said he believes the answers can
often be found already in what he calls 'edge cultures.' "I would look outside of the military. What are they doing in video games? What are they doing in healthcare? What about the financial industry?" Doctor Canton said he believes that more sophisticated

artificial intelligence applications will transform business, warfare and life in general. Many of these are already
embedded in systems or products, he says, even if people don't know it.

Exporting LNG increases warming --- any tradeoffs are overcome by leakage, and the energy intensive liquefying Romm 12 ( Romm, PhD from MIT, Fellow at American Progress, editor of Climate Progress, previously assistant secretary of energy for
energy efficiency and renewable energy, Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Is Still Bad For The Climate And A Very Poor Long-Term Investment, August 16, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/16/699601/exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-lng-bad-for-climate-poorlong-term-investment/) The surge in U.S. production of shale gas is creating a surge in permit requests to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Thats because the glut of U.S. gas has dropped domestic prices sharply below global price levels. I explained back in June why Exporting LNG Is Bad For The Climate. But the New York Times has just run a misleading op-ed, The Case for Natural Gas Exports, so the issue clearly merits a revisit. LNG Value Chain The NY Times piece offers this paragraph as the sole defense to the well-known charge that LNG exports are bad for the climate: At the same time, exports would likely reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the small price increases that would result from allowing exports would have at most a marginal impact on the use of natural gas as fuel for cars and trucks. Blocking exports wouldnt push natural gas into automobiles it would mostly keep it in the ground, because there would be less incentive to extract it. The

argument about cars and trucks is a red herring (at best) since replacing gasoline with natural gas in vehicles is pretty clearly a loser from a global warming perspective and always will be as a major 2012 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study makes clear. It is head-scratching to say the least to claim that exports would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when the Times acknowledges that blocking exports would leave this fossil fuel in the ground! Burning natural gas releases GHGs. We need to slash global GHGs 50% in four decades merely to have a shot at keeping total warming anywhere near 2C (3.6F), a point beyond which risks to human civilization multiply exponentially. Worse, natural gas extraction is leaky, and natural gas is mostly methane, a highly potent GHG (with some one hundred times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period). Most of the new natural gas in this country comes from hydraulic fracturing, which is widely thought to be leakier than conventional gas extraction. Worst of all, cooling natural gas to about 162C (260F) and shipping it overseas for use in distant countries is costly and energyintensive: The process to bring the gas to such low temperatures requires highly capital intensive infrastructure. Liquefaction plants, specially designed ships fitted with cryogenic cooling tanks, regasification terminals and domestic transmission infrastructure all make LNG relatively expensive in construction and operational cost. When you factor in the energy and emissions from this entire process, including shipping, you get a total life-cycle energy penalty of 20% or more. The extra greenhouse gas emissions can equal 30% or more of combustion emissions, according to a pretty definitive 2009 Reference Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Liquefied Natural Gas for Europe Some Important Issues for Consideration. The NY Times piece actually makes this odd argument on behalf of LNG exports: It will take years before any export terminals are up and running in the meantime, producers and
regulators should strengthen safeguards so that gas is extracted safely. But this is yet another reason why LNG exports make no sense. Why would we want to start massive exports of natural gas around the end of this decade, with costly new infrastructure that lasts until midcentury? If avoiding catastrophic climate change is your goal, then spending huge sums on even conventional natural gas infrastructure is clearly not the answer, as a

recent International Energy Agency report made clear: The specic emissions from a gas-red power plant will be higher than average global CO2 intensity in electricity generation by 2025, raising questions around the long-term viability of some gas infrastructure investment if climate change objectives are to be met. Duh! Or is that Doh? And as weve seen, LNG shipped from the U.S. is much worse from a GHG perspective than regular gas, so by the time a lot of new LNG terminals are up and running in this country, it seems likely that LNG-fired plants overseas will be have a higher GHG intensity than the average plant in the electric

generation system needed to be anywhere near a non-catastrophic emissions path. We do not want to build a global energy system around natural gas (see IEAs Golden Age of Gas Scenario Leads to More Than 6F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change). At the time, the UK Guardians story put it well: At such a level, global warming could run out of control, deserts would take over in southern Africa, Australia and the western US, and sea level rises could engulf small island states. The extra emissions from LNG all but eliminate whatever small, short-term benefit there might be of building billion-dollar export terminals and other LNG infrastructure, which in any case will last many decades, long after a sustainable electric grid will not benefit one jot from replacing coal with gas. Asserting any net benefit requires assuming the
new gas replaces only coal and isnt used for, say, natural gas vehicles, which, as noted, are worse for the climate or that it doesnt replace new renewables. If even a modest fraction of the imported LNG displaces renewables, it renders the entire expenditure for LNG counterproductive from day one. Remember, a

major 2012 study on technology warming potentials (TWPs) found that a big switch from coal to gas would only reduce TWP by about 25% over the first three decades (see Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere Absent A Carbon Price AND Strong Standards To Reduce Methane Leakage). And that is based on EPAs latest estimate of the amount of CH4 released because of leaks and venting in the natural gas network between production
wells and the local distribution network of 2.4%. Many experts believe the leakage rate is higher than 2.4%, particularly for shale gas. Also,

recent air sampling by NOAA over Colorado found 4% methane leakage, more than double industry claims. A different 2012 study by climatologist Ken Caldeira and tech guru Nathan Myhrvold finds basically no benefit in the switch whatsoever see You Cant Slow Projected Warming With Gas, You Need Rapid and Massive Deployment of Zero-Carbon Power. That study takes into account the near-term impact of the construction of new infrastructure.
BOTTOM LINE: Investing billions of dollars in new shale gas infrastructure for domestic use is, at best, of limited value for a short period of time if we put in place both a CO2 price and regulations to minimize methane leakage. Exporting gas vitiates even that limited value and so investing billions in LNG infrastructure is, at best, a waste of resources better utilized for deploying truly low-carbon energy. At worst, it helps accelerates the world past the 2C (3.6F) warming threshold into Terra incognita a planet of amplifying feedbacks and multiple simultaneous catastrophic impacts.

2NC Turns Case

Turns case Palley 06 (The Levy Economics Institute of Bard Colleg, RETHINKING TRADE AND TRADE POLICY Gomory, Baumol, and Samuelson
on Comparative Advantage, http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb_86.pdf) Finally, strategic

policy can be useful in a world with unemployment due to inadequate demand. In this case, countries that stimulate their own domestic demand and poach demand from other countries

(through measures

such as subsidies) increase production in their industries and lower average costs. Consequently, these countries can become the ruling lowcost producer at the expense of others. Relative productivity decline and loss of technological leadership play an important role in the GBS story. Most immediately, this raises questions about the wisdom of international outsourcing in industries where the U nited S tates has had a comparative advantage historically and been an exporter. Such outsourcing involves technology transfer . Although companies benefit from outsourcing by earning foreign profits, outsourcing can diminish U.S. national income if it transfers technology that increases competition versus U.S. exports.

UQ
*US manufacturing will structurally recover in the long-term

Boselovic 1/13 (Len, Heard Off the Street: Recent events temper optimism on reshoring,"
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/opinion/heard-off-the-street-recent-events-temperoptimism-on-reshoring-670221/)
The ExOne Co. disclosed plans last week for an initial public offering, giving investors an opportunity to place a bet on technology many say

could reverse the long, steady decline of U.S. manufacturing. The North Huntingdon business is one of a growing number of practitioners of a technology industrial mavens have named additive manufacturing. It involves making complex products using digital imaging rather than bending, molding, punching or grinding parts that must then be assembled into a finished product that additive manufacturing can produce quicker and cheaper. Advocates say the technology could help bring factory jobs back to the United States, a trend manufacturing gurus say has enough legs already to justify a name: reshoring. Boston Consulting Group says reshoring could create 2.5 million to 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs by the end of this decade. President Barack Obama and others have based their claims of a renaissance in U.S. manufacturing on reshoring and increasing U.S. exports.

2NC Link
the plan causes Dutch Disease increased natural resource exports directly lead to more deindustrialization from decreased transport costs and the viability of markets the plan opens up that kills manfucaturing because those industries become more valuable this card does all the explanation for me also collapses the economy Inflation, their Jobs are unproductive, lower production, and short-circuits shipbuidling Smith 10 (G. Jason B.S., University of Louisville, Department of Political Science University of Louisville Louisville, KY December 6,2010
DO SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS MITIGATE AUTHORITARIAN RULE? A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS AND THE RESOURCE CURSE, http://digital.library.louisville.edu/utils/getfile/collection/etd/id/2015/filename/4812.pdf)

Dutch Disease occurs when a state experiences a rapid increase in resource exportation that culminates in indirect and direct deindustrialization . I Indirect deindustrialization occurs within the labor market of the afflicted state by pushing workers out of the manufacturing sector into the resource extraction and service sectors (Corden and Neary, 1982; Bruno and Sachs, 1982; Corden, 1984). Increased demand for resources by world markets boost wages in the resource-extraction sector of the economy. Higher wages then attract skilled labor from manufacturing companies resulting in a shift of educated personnel from the industrial sector to the resource extraction sector
1982; Corden, 1984). As the situation continues, (Corden and Neary, 1982; Bruno and Sachs,

the state's workforce loses its comparative advantage in tradable

manufactured goods further promoting deindustrialization (Krugman, 1987). The spending effect further impedes labor movement into the industrial sector by increasing employment demand in the service sector as the state uses its new-found commodity wealth to boost government expenditures on public and social services (Ross, 1999; Ross 2001). Increased demand for labor in those employment areas elevate wages and creates an incentive for unskilled workers to enter the service sector over the industrial secto r domestic inflation
(Bruno and Sachs, 1982; Van Wijnbergen, 1984). (Krugman, 1987).

Rising incomes

increase internal demand for manufactured goods and services that leads to price escalation and Inflation combined with elevated global demand for resources increase the real exchange rate of the state's currency resulting in direct deindustrialization (Van Wijnbergen, 1984). The process of direct deindustrialization unfolds as follows. An increase in the real exchange rate makes goods manufactured in the resource-rich state relatively more expensive on the global market than goods produced in countries without inflation problems. Higher exchange rates also make imports relatively cheaper than domestic production for the resource-rich state (Bruno and Sachs, 1982; Krugman, 1987). The resulting economic situation incentivizes the importation of manufactured goods over domestic production for Dutch Disease afflicted states.
Over time,

these circumstances erode the ability of the inflation-

distressed state to export manufactured goods leading to direct deindustrialization . The cycle continues with each peak in commodity prices leaving resource exporting states ever more vulnerable to deindustrialization (Corden and Neary, 1982; Bruno and Sachs, 1982; Corden, 1984; Van Wijnbergen, 1984; Krugman, 1987; Auty, 1990; Auty, 1993; Auty, 2001). Concentration of labor resources in the commodity extraction sector of the economy does not produce the type of occupational specialization conducive to democratization because of the unique nature of that industry . Specifically, technical advances and

worker productivity tend to increase slower in resource-extraction jobs than in the traditional manufacturing sector (Ross, 1999). Limited exposure to technological development prevents employees from developing the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge the government because workers are not required to continue their education beyond the initial learning process (Lipset, 1959; Inglehart, 1960; Deutsch, 1961; Ross, 1999; Ross, 2001). The slow evolution of worker productivity inherent in the resource extraction sector tends to further hinder occupational specialization through a separate process (Ross, 1999). To maximize worker efficiency
under the Dutch Disease circumstances, employees are not shifted around to different jobs. As such, unions and other industrial groups do not form to protect workers.

Its all about exports Australia proves that increase US exports creates perverse incentives and stagnates economic growth LeVine 6/7/12 (Steve, Environment & Energy Publishing, A cautionary tale for U.S. energy policy unfolds in the Land Down Under,
http://eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/06/07/2)

Coal and iron ore have transformed Australia into a regional powerhouse, propelling a 51 percent economic expansion over the past two years alone and spearheading an expected further gusher of export wealth from liquefied natural gas. Yet the remarkable boom has come at a price: Australia's dollar has surged 69 percent in value in the past decade, cutting into tourism and eroding the competitiveness of its manufactured products. Its manufacturing base has shrunk by almost 100,000 jobs over the past four years, according to government figures. As the boom has built, Australians have gone deeply into debt -- last year, they owed an average of 156 percent of their disposable household income, more than triple their 49 percent debt load in 1991. It's a dilemma that could be replicated in the United States. Swiss investment bank UBS said in a research note this week that the U.S. energy boom could raise annual economic growth almost 1 percent but also strengthen the U.S. dollar, raising the price of American exports and making them less competitive abroad (EnergyWire, June 5). Australians call it their "two-track economy." A 19-year run of economic growth fueled by China's industrial and commercial boom has delivered unprecedented wealth to the country of 22.3 million people. But, driven mostly by mining and drilling exports from just two rural provinces, it has also weighed on the rest of the economy, including in large cities outside the resource belt such as Melbourne and Sydney. Now, with flagging economic growth in China, Australia's reliance on cyclically priced commodities is reverberating broadly in the country. Economic growth has slowed -- in the last quarter of 2011, it was just 0.4 percent -- as Australian companies are receiving 17 percent less for thermal coal than a year ago and 31 percent less for iron ore. But the slump has been unevenly dispersed: Airline, banking and engineering companies recently announced thousands of layoffs. Yet Australia's natural resource companies, pushing ahead with record capital investment despite the Chinese slowdown, have begun to recruit abroad to fill $100,000-a-year-and-up skilled labor jobs. "What do you call a credit bubble built on a commodity bull market built on a much bigger Chinese credit bubble? Leveraged leverage? A [collateralized debt obligation] squared? No, it's Australia," Dylan Grice, an analyst with Socit Gnrale, said in a note to clients last month. U.S. economists and energy analysts, taking stock of growing production in shale oil and shale gas fields, have begun to forecast a broad-based American economic revival, including hundreds of thousands of new jobs. But Australia illustrates that such booms do not necessarily produce broad-based job growth, and that they can prove debilitating in unexpected ways to other important industries .

Default neg all of their evidence is just SNAPSHOTS ONLY our evidence assumes LONG TERM trends in exports Holland 6/7/12 (Andrew, Senior Fellow for Energy and Climate Policy at the American Security Project, a non-partisan think tank
based in Washington, DC, Will Dutch Disease Follow-on the American Energy Boom?, http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/06/07/will-dutch-disease-follow-on-the-american-energy-boom/)

An ongoing discussion among some of us analysts at Consumer Energy Report has been about whether having natural resources like oil or coal is actually beneficial to a country (see Are Countries With Vast Oil
Resources Blessed or Cursed?, Oil Dependence Tom Friedmans False Narrative, and Oil Easy to Produce, But Not Easy to Buy). The argument which Ive made is that a

boom in natural resources production can cover up some short-sighted economic policies; in effect, the earnings from producing oil mean that countries do not have to invest in their education or produce their own manufactured goods. The other side of the argument is that it can only be a good thing for new resources to be found.
Leaving aside the question of whether natural resource wealth undermines institutions or causes corruption (and there is good evidence of a resource curse among developing countries) there

is one thing that increased production of oil does, once it gets to be a big enough sector of the economy: it pushes up the value of that countrys currency. All else equal (as economists always have to say), new production of natural resources strengthens the domestic currency. Thats because those resources are either exported or are used to replace imports. Dutch Disease Phenomenon Now I should mention that I like a
strong dollar, personally: it means I can afford to travel abroad more, and buy more when I get there. It also means that French wine (for example) becomes cheaper relative to Californian wine. I like French wine, and would welcome being able to buy more. However, that shows the

problem with having a strong currency it undermines domestic manufacturing and production (of Californian wine, in this example) by driving up prices of American-made goods and services. This phenomenon is called Dutch Disease. Coined by The Economist in 1977 to describe how finding natural gas in the North Sea in 1959 affected the Netherlands econom y over the ensuing decades. The symptoms of the disease are when commodity exports push up the value of a nations currency, making other parts of the economy less competitive. This leads to a current-account deficit, which makes the economy even more dependent upon the commodity. The disease is especially pernicious for commodities like oil, coal, and natural gas because these industries are very capital-intensive, and actually do not generate that many jobs. There are two major industrialized countries that have undergone commodities booms over the past decade: Canada and Australia. They are both showing signs of suffering from Dutch Disease, with the Canadian dollar increasing in value vs. the American dollar (Canadas #1 trading partner by far) by over 50% in the last ten years, and the Australian dollar increased in value compared to world currency rates by almost 70% in the past decade. Exports vs. Domestic Manufacturing
Canadas boom, related to the exploitation and exports of Albertas Oil Sands, has brought boom times to the resource-rich areas of Western Canada. However, an article in the Global Post highlights how the

boom is dividing Canada: Western politicians are pushing for more oilcentered exports, while politicians in Ontario and Quebec, Canadas traditional manufacturing heartland, are saying that increased oil exports have undercut their ability to manufacture. The article says:
The debate was reignited last month by Tom Mulcair, leader of the federal New Democratic Party, the main opposition to the ruling Conservative government.

The high dollar , he said, has hollowed out the manufacturing sector and cost a half-million jobs. Australia too, is having problems with its currency. Steve LeVine writes in EnergyWire that A Cautionary Tale for U.S. Energy Policy Unfolds in the Land Down Under (paywalled). While Australias boom is not related to oil, it is exports of coal and iron ore much of it exported to fuel Chinas dramatic economic expansion as well as becoming an important new exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Levine writes: Australias dollar has surged 69 percent in value in the past decade, cutting into tourism and eroding the competitiveness of its manufactured products. Its manufacturing base has shrunk by almost 100,000 jobs over the past four years, according to government figures.

2NC Small Business

Natural resource extraction crowds out entrepreneurship and undermines economic growth. Glaeser et al, Professor of Economics at Harvard, 12
(Edward. Sari Pekkala Kerr, Wellesley College, William R. Kerr, Harvard Business School, July, Entrepreneurship and Urban Growth: An Empirical Assessment with Historical Mines, http://conference.nber.org/confer//2012/SI2012/PRENT/Glaeser_Pekkala_Kerr_Kerr.pdf, page 1, accessed 8-5-12, CMM) We tackle this problem by using an idea suggested in Chinitzs original account. Chinitz claimed that Pittsburghs dearth of entrepreneurs in the 1950s reflected its historical concentration in steel, which in turn reflected proximity to large deposits of coal and iron ore (White, 1928). The steel industry has significant returns to scale, and Chinitz argued that its presence crowded out more entrepreneurial activities. This left Pittsburgh with an abundance of company men but few entrepreneurs. Moreover,
Chinitz emphasized how this dampening of entrepreneurship comes through both static factors (e.g., access to inputs for new businesses) and dynamic factors (e.g., the transmission of skills and attitudes from parents to children). We

systematically investigate the connection between historical mineral and coal deposits and modern entrepreneurship. There are returns to scale in many extractive industries and their industrial customers, not just coal and steel. The process of bringing ores out of the earth is a capital-intensive operation that often benefits from large-scale operations. Transforming and transporting ores also typically requires large machines and production facilities. Therefore, we hypothesize that cities with a historical abundance of nearby mineral and coal mines will have developed industrial structures with systematically larger establishments and less entrepreneurship. These early industrial traits can in turn influence modern entrepreneurship through persistence and intergenerational transmissions that we elaborate on further below.

2NC Econ Overview

Manufacturings key to the economy it boosts jobs and research and development. Independently its key to sector diversity and innovation that provides economic resiliency thats Ettlinger and Gordon. Prefer it its qualified and assumes the recent financial crisis. Independently theyve conceded our consumer spending link Healthy manufacturing sector is vital to the US economy and US global leadership Vargo 03 (Franklin, International Economic Affairs National Association of Manufacturers, FDCH, lexis)
I would like to begin my statement with a review of why needs manufacturing? The answer in brief is that

manufacturing is vital to the U.S. economy . Since manufacturing

United States

only represents about 16 percent of the nation's output, who cares? Isn't the United States a postmanufacturing services economy? Who

the

economy would collapse without manufacturing,

That is because

as would our national security and our role in the world.

manufacturing is really the

foundation of our economy, both in terms of innovation and production and in terms of supporting the rest of the economy . For example, many individuals point out that only about 3 percent of the U.S. workforce is on the farm, but
they manage to feed the nation and export to the rest of the world. But how did this agricultural productivity come to be? It is because of the

tractors and combines and satellite systems and fertilizers and advanced seeds, etc. that came from the genius and productivity of the manufacturing sector. Similarly, in services can you envision an airline without airplanes? Fast food outlets without griddles and freezers? Insurance companies or banks without computers? Certainly not. The manufacturing industry is truly the innovation industry, without which the rest of the economy could not prosper . Manufacturing performs over 60 percent of the nation's research and development. Additionally, it also underlies the technological ability of the United States to maintain its national security and its global leadership .
Manufacturing makes a disproportionately large contribution to productivity, more than twice the rate of the overall economy, and pays wages that are about 20 percent higher than in other sectors. But its most fundamental importance lies in the fact that a healthy manufacturing sector truly underlies the entire U.S. standard of living because it is the principal way by which the United States pays its way in the world. Manufacturing accounts for over 80 percent of all U.S. exports of goods. America's farmers will export somewhat over $50 billion this year, but America's manufacturers export almost that much every month! Even

when services are included, manufacturing accounts for twothirds of all U.S. exports of goods and services.

Manufacturing key to the economy multiple internal links Ezell 11 [Stephen J., Senior Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, "The Case for a National Manufacturing
Strategy," April 2011, http://www2.itif.org/2011-national-manufacturing-strategy.pdf]

A robust manufacturing sector is indispensible to the health of the U.S. economy. While manufacturing is not the only sector that contributes to a nations international competitiveness, it is impossible for large economies like the United States to remain competitive without a viable manufacturing sector. Manufacturing plays a critical role in the U.S. economy for five key reasons: It will be extremely difficult for the United States
to balance its trade account without a healthy manufacturing sector. Manufacturing is a key driver of employment growth and source of highpaying jobs for individuals at many skill levels. Manufacturing is the principal source

It Will Be Extremely Difficult for the United States to Balance its Trade Account Without a Healthy Manufacturing Sector Perhaps the most important reason the United States needs a healthy manufacturing base is because it is the principal way for our nation to stop running chronic trade deficits. Balancing U.S. trade through a revitalized manufacturing sector is crucial because: The trade deficit represents a tax on future generations that compromise their economic well-being. The United States is running substantial trade deficits across many categories of manufactured products. Services and non-manufactured goods wont be enough to close the U.S. trade deficit. The trade deficit represents a tax on
of R&D and innovation activity. Manufacturing and services sectors are inseparable and complementary. Manufacturing is vital to U.S. national security. future generation The principal reason to be concerned with the health of U.S. manufacturing relates to its key role in determining the U.S. trade balanceand its economic impact not just on the current generation of Americans,

but also on the next one. Over the prior decade, approximately , and thus a weak manufacturing sector has contributed substantially to large and chronic trade deficits. 8 If Americans are going to import large volumes of HDTVs, T-shirts, and sports cars, we must have something that other nations want to buy in exchange thats why its called trading and not borrowing. The massive bill we run up every year by buying more imports than selling exports will have to be paid eventually when foreign nations demand payment in real goods and services, not in Treasury Bills. (In fact, the average annual U.S. trade deficit for each year of the previous decade was $458 billion, or about $20,000 per household over the course of the decade.) The implication of the United States chronic trade deficit is that while Americas 310 million consumers can buy their imported DVD players, T-shirts, cars, and oil to drive them cheaply today, the manufacturing base that would produce wealth in the future is being hollowed out. And while

manufacturing accounted for

65 percent of U.S. trade

a weaker manufacturing base are felt presently by the almost six million manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs over the past decade, those effects will be felt most in the form of relatively lower U.S. productivity and a trade debt that future generations will have to pay off by producing more than they consume and exporting the difference. Its as simple as this: every DVD player, luxury automobile, and barrel of oil Americans consume
some of the effects of keenly in the future now by expanding our trade debt is a DVD player, luxury automobile, and barrel of oil that a future generation will have to pay for in the form of reduced consumption of real goods and services and a future trade surplus. Thus, the trade deficit represents a hidden tax on the next generation of Americans. The reality is that the United States will have to significantly boost its manufacturing exports to balance its trade in order to avoid passing on unsustainable debts to future generations. The United States is running substantial trade deficits across many categories of manufactured products As Figure 4 illustrates, over the past two decades the United States has increasingly run sharp trade deficits in both manufactured products (such as vehicles, consumer electronics, and machine tools) and non-manufactured goods (such as agricultural products, oil, and commodity inputs), with the recent mitigation in those trade imbalances caused primarily by the recession. But the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured products is not seen just in low- to mid-technology products like apparel, luggage, or hand tools, but even in advanced technology products (e.g. life sciences, medical devices, optoelectronics, information technology, and aerospace products) as a whole. Even in some advanced technology industries where one might expect that surely the United States runs a trade surplus, such as renewable energy products, the country actually runs a trade deficit. In fact, from 2004 to 2008, the trade deficit in renewable energy products increased by 1,400 percent to nearly $5.7 billion. 9 The reality is thatwhile the United States has comforted itself with the narrative that it could let go of commodity manufacturing industries an d seamlessly migrate up the valuechain to high-tech, higher-value-added industries in which it could readily lead the worldthe United States is increasingly running trade deficits in manufacturing sectors across all levels of technological sophistication. A number of stark facts make the challenge clear: Aggregate U.S. trade deficit: During the prior decade, the United States accumulated a $5.5 trillion trade deficit in goods and services with the rest of the world. 10 In no year in the last decade did the United States have a negative trade balance of less than $360 billion, and in five of those years it had negative trade balances of at least $600 billion. U.S. trade deficit in manufactured products The U.S. trade deficit in manufactured products tallied nearly $4.5 trillion from 2000 to 2010. 11 In seven of those ten years, the U.S. manufactured products trade deficit was greater than $400 billion. U.S. trade balance in advanced technology products: The United States has recorded a deficit in advanced technology products trade every year since 2002. 12 The United States ran a $81 billion advanced technology products trade deficit in 2010, the largest in its history, and from January 2002 to December 2010, it totaled a $427 billion deficit in advanced technology products. 13 U.S. share of world exports Since 2000, the U.S. share of world exports has declined from 17 percent to 11 percent, even as the European Unions share he ld steady at 17 percent. 15 From 2005 to 2010, the U.S. share of global high-tech exports dropped from 21 percent to 14 percent, while Chinas share grew from 7 percent to 20 percent, as China replaced the United States as the worlds number one hightechnology exporter. 16 Services and non-manufactured goods exports wont be enough to close the trade deficit Some have argued that the United States can close its trade deficit solely by boosting exports of services and/or non-manufactured goods (principally agricultural products or energy exports such as natural gas). And while the United States does run a trade surplus in services, that positive balance ($149 billion in 2010) was dwarfed by a negative balance in goods imports ($646 billion), for an aggregate U.S. trade deficit of $499 billion in 2010 (which was $123 billion, or 25 percent, more than the 2009 deficit of $375 billion). 17 Moreover, with U.S. exports of goods 157 percent greater than exports of services, one of the fastest ways to boost exports will be through expa nding manufacturing. The Brookings Institutions Howard Wial has examined export growth rates for services, non-manufactured goods, and manufactured products (or combinations thereof) that would be required to balance the U.S. trade deficit over the next decade. He finds that to balance the trade deficit through increased services exports alone would require them to grow at an annual compound rate of 13.5 percent over the next decade, whereas their annual growth rate from 2001-2010 was 7.9 percent. To balance trade through increases in nonmanufactured goods exports would require them to grow at a 23.7 percent rate over the next decade, whereas they grew at a 11.1 percent rate over the past decade. However, to balance trade by 2019 with only manufacturing

manufacturing has a shorter road to hoe in terms of the increase in exports required of it to balance the trade deficit. 18 Moreover, even if the U.S.s services surplus
exports, they would have to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 9.4 percent, compared to their growth rate of 6 percent over the prior decade. In other words, grew 10 percent every year (a highly unlikely scenario) it would take fifteen years before it would equal the amount of the goods trade deficit in 2010, whereas that gap could be closed in just two and a half years if both exports of goods and services increased at a 10 percent annualized rate. Thus increases in services and non-manufactured goods exports will be necessary but not sufficient; to balance its trade the United States must have a robust manufacturing sector. The reality is that the

approach In contrast to the contention made in a recent Economist article that calls to boost manufacturing ignore the gains still to be made from services, calls to boost manufacturing simply recognize manufacturing f or what it isa vital component of the U.S. economy, the preponderant source of U.S. exports, and a major source of strong paying middle class jobs (as explained subsequently). 19 Moreover, to make such an argument is not to denigrate the important role services play, but rather to make the argument that the United States

United States needs robust manufacturing, services, and nonmanufactured goods industries; the country must move beyond its either/or to balancing its trade deficit and to restoring economic growth.

without a robust manufacturing sector, its simply impossible for almost any nation, unless its endowed with oil or other natural resources, to balance its tradeand the United States is no exception. Manufacturing is a Key Driver of Employment Growth and Source of High-paying Jobs for Individuals at Many Skill Levels Manufacturing is vitally important to the U.S. economy because it is a crucial source of: Employment growth, particularly through exports. Indirect employment in other economic sectors. High-paying jobs, for individuals at many skill levels. Manufacturing is a key source of overall U.S. employment growth, particularly through exports Regional economists have long shown that the employment multiplier from exports is much higher than that from spending within a region. This is why so many states target exporting sectors like manufacturing, software, tourism, and corporate headquarters. For every job supported by exports from a state, usually two or three jobs are supported in the state. National economies are larger than state economies, but the principle is the same: exports have a bigger impact on jobs than domestic spending. Economist Lori Kletzner finds that, within an industry, a 10 percent increase in sales due to exports leads to a 7 percent increase in employment, while a 10 percent increase in domestic demand leads to just a 3.5 percent increase in employment. 20 With manufacturing accounting for 57 percent of U.S. exports, the fastest way to boost exportsand the jobs they supportwill be by increasing U.S. manufacturing. Manufacturing generates significant employment spillovers in other sectors Most economists agree that manufacturing has a large multiplier effect, with each job in manufacturing leading to the creation of from two to five additional jobs elsewhere in the economy . 21 The Economic Policy Institute finds that manufacturing jobs have a robust
cannot succeed without a much stronger manufacturing sector. Ultimately, employment multiplier of 2.90, compared to 1.63 in business services or 1.66 in transportation. 22 A more recent June 2009 Milken Institute report, Manufacturing 2.0, finds that for every job created in manufacturing, 2.5 jobs are created in other sectors. 23 Hans Zobel, former CEO of Festo, a German manufacturer of electrical automation technology, notes that recent research from Germany finds that a job in a modern, smart manufacturing factory supports 5.2 additional jobs throughout the economy. 24

High-tech manufacturing industries have even greater multipliers. Electronic computer manufacturing has

a multiplier effect , meaning 15 other jobs are dependent on one job created in that industry. 25 Likewise, manufacturing has a substantial impact in terms of output, with an estimated additional $1.40 in output from other sectors being generated for every $1.00 in final sales of manufactured products. 26 The only other industries coming even close to this are information services; agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; and

of 16 jobs

A strong manufacturing sector is not just about more jobs; its about higher wage jobs. U.S. manufacturing jobs, on average, pay 9 percent more in wages and benefits than jobs in the overall economy. 27 Moreover, the average wage in the high-tech sector (which includes a large number of manufacturing jobs) is 86 percent higher than the average private sector wage. 28 Many
construction, each slightly over $1.00. Manufacturing is a key source of high-paying jobs manufacturing jobs are found in export-producing traded industries. 29 Thus, one of the reasons jobs in manufacturing pay more is because manufacturing produces more exports, and exports contribute an additional 18 percent to workers earnings on average in the U.S. manufacturing sector. 30 Moreover, the premium for blue-collar workers is approximately 20 percent greater than the export earnings premium for white-collar workers. 31 Employees in the top third of the most trade-intensive industries (those where combined exports and imports amount to at least 70 percent of their domestic industrial output) earn an annual compensation package about 47 percent greater

Manufacturing remains a critical source of middle-class jobs U.S. manufacturing jobs increasingly require individuals possessing higher skill levels. From 1973 to 2001, the share of production workers with some postthan those in the bottom third of trade-intensive manufacturing sectors. 32 secondary education rose from 8 percent to over 30 percent. 33 Moreover, according to a recent survey of leading manufacturers, 51 percent of the workforce demand in manufacturing is currently for skilled production workers, 46 percent for scientists and engineers, and only 7 percent for unskilled production workers. 34 Yet, while manufacturing workers are becoming more educated and skilled, still 47 percent of U.S. manufacturing workers have not completed education beyond high school (with about 36 percent of the U.S. manufacturing workforce having high school but no college education and 11 percent not having completed high school). 35 Given the wage data for the

If the United States is to move away from a bifurcated economy of janitors vs. lawyers with the consequent substantial wage differentials that entails, these types of moderately skilled jobs will be crucial to providing good-paying employment to large numbers of Americans. Manufacturing is the Principal Source of R&D and Innovation Activity Manufacturing plays a critical role in driving R&D and innovation. Manufacturing accounts for the vast majority of U.S. R&D. Manufacturing
industry, this means that manufacturing remains a critical source of good-paying jobs for a broad swath of the U.S. workforce that lacks advanced education. sectors are the most innovative in the economy. Manufacturing accounts for the vast majority of U.S. R&D Manufacturing firms perform approximately 70 percent of U.S. industry R&D, despite the fact that manufacturing accounts for only about 11 percent of the economy. Services industries, despite the fact that they account for over 80 percent of GDP, perform only 30 percent of industry R&D. 36 Manufacturing sectors are the most innovative The

U.S. manufacturing industries in aggregateexhibited a considerably higher overall incidence of innovation than did the population of companies as a whole. 38 In fact, 22 percent of manufacturing companies reported product or process innovations compared to only 8 percent of nonmanufacturing companies reporting product or process innovations over that time frame. Moreover, the individual industries with the highest rates of innovation were found almost entirely in manufacturing industries. For example, 45 percent of computer/electronic products firms reported product innovations and 33 percent process innovations; 41 percent of
National Science Foundations 2008 Business R&D and Innovation Survey found that, on average, only 9 percent of surveyed U.S. businesses were active innovators from 2006 to 2008. 37 However, chemical companies reported product innovations and 34 percent process innovations; and 37 percent of electrical equipment/appliances/components subsector firms reported product innovations. Manufacturing and Services Sectors are Inseparable and Complementary While some economists have tried to draw sharp divisions between manufacturing and services in an attempt to argue that an economy can grow robustly without a manufacturing

manufacturing and services sectors are inseparable and complementary . The notion that the United States can give up its manufacturing sectors because it will be able to seamlessly migrate up the value chain to higher-value-added knowledge-based service sectors is incorrect. Yet some have argued that the United States should feel safe offshoring all manufacturing, because service-based activities such as R&D, design, financing, marketing, and
sector, the reality is that the service maintenance functions will stay here. However, the notion that the design and R&D value add components can be separated from the manufacturing of a technology-based product is fundamentally flawed, because: . . The health of manufacturing and services sectors depend on one another. Manufacturing, R&D, and innovation go hand-in-hand Greg Tassey, Senior Economist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, excoriates the received wisdom that the United States can outsource manufacturing but keep the higher-value-added service activities at home, observing that this view fundamentally misunderstands the nature of technology development, especially across current and subsequent technology life cycles. As Tassey writes: When technological advances take place in the foreign industry, manufacturing is frequently located in that country to be near the source of the R&D. The issue of colocation of R&D and manufacturing is especially important because it means the value -added from both R&D and manufacturing will accrue to the innovating economy, at least when the technology is in its formative

Manufacturing, R&D, and innovation go hand-in-hand The process of industrial loss becomes additive

an economy that initially controls both R&D and manufacturing can lose the value-added first from manufacturing and then R&D in the current technology life cycle and then first R&D followed by manufacturing in the subsequent technology life cycle. This is the economics of decline. 39 Susan Houseman of the Institute for Employment Research agrees: The big debate is whether we can continue to be competitive in R&D when we are not making the stuff that we innovate. I think not; the two cannot be separated. 40 Likewise, according to George W. Bushs Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, The proximity of research, development, and manufacturing is very important to leading-edge manufacturers. 41 In other words, the continuing shift of manufacturing offshore is pulling high-end design and
stages. Thus, R&D capabilities out of the country. In fact, 90 percent of all electronics R&D now takes place in Asia, in part because firms need volume production to be able to afford general R&D. 42 This in part explains why, from 1998 to 2007, investment by U.S. corporations in R&D increased more than 2.65 times as fast overseas as all corporate investment did domestically. 43 Thus, the reality is that R&D, innovation, and manufacturing go hand-in-hand. As Dow

Where manufacturing goes, innovation inevitably follows. 44 The process of innovation and industrial loss becomes additive Once one technological life cycle is lost to foreign competitors, subsequent technology life cycles are likely to be lost as well. In fact, examples abound of the United States losing technology leadership in one product life cycle with the result that it falls behind in subsequent technology life cycles. For example, the United States lost leadership in rechargeable battery manufacturing technology years ago, largely because most innovation in batteries has been driven by increasing demands in consumer electronics
Chemical CEO Andy Liveris succinctly states: for more and more power in smaller packages. 45 When U.S. companies largely abandoned the mature consumer electronics busin ess, the locus of R&D manufacturingnot just for laptops and cell phones but also their advanced batteriesshifted to Asia. And lo and behold, as U.S. and global attention has turned toward developing energy-efficient vehicles using advanced electric batteries, Japans and Koreas strong battery (and auto) industries have given them an advantage over U.S. companies in developing electric and hybrid vehicles. Hence, GM has had to source the advanced battery for its Chevy Volt from a Korean supplier. Likewise, the migration of semiconductor foundries to Asia has caused a sharp decline in silicon-processing and thin-film-deposition capabilities in the United States. But now that thin-film-deposition turns out to be a critical process in manufacturing photovoltaic solar cells, the United States increasingly risks falling behind in the manufacture and development of solar cells. The net effect of these trends is the deepening erosion of the U.S. industrial base, the hollowing out of advanced production supply chains, and the loss, for many U.S. industries, of their industrial commonsthe R&D know-how, advanced process development, engineering skills, and manufacturing competencies related to a specific technology. As Harvards Willy Shih and Gary Pisano conclude, Decades of outsourcing manufacturing have left U.S. industry without the means to invent the next generation of high-tech products that are crucial to rebuilding its

There is a deeply symbiotic, interdependent relationship between the health of a nations manufacturing and services sectors: the health of one sector greatly shapes the health of the other. In particular, the technology-based services sector depends heavily on manufactured goods. In part, this is because most modern technologies are actually systems, which means interdependencies exist among a set of industries that contribute advanced materials, various components, subsystems, manufacturing systems, and eventually service systems based on sets of manufactured hardware and software. 47 Since, as noted previously, most U.S. R&D is performed by its manufacturing firms, manufacturing R&D remains the dominant source of services-sector technologies, and thus services companies must take much of their technology from the manufacturing sector. Therefore, the U.S. economys ability to remain competitive in services sectors, particularly high-technology ones, requires close interactions withthe creators and suppliers of technologically advanced hardware and software. As Greg Tassey observes, The demise of a substantial high-tech domestic manufacturing sector would greatly diminish the size and efficiency of the overall domestic innovation infrastructure. Under a services-sector-only growth scenario, an economy would miss skilled pools of researchers to be the developers of high-tech services. 48 The message is clear: manufacturing and services are not separable they are joined at the hip. Therefore, the United States must discard the notion that it can give up its manufacturing industries but retain a robust set of services sectors capable of propelling the economy forward by themselves.
economy. 46 The health of manufacturing and service sectors are interdependent

2NC China War

A) Loss of manufacturing Risks a China-Taiwan War
Steven Mosher 2/14/06 (President of the Population Research Institute, CQ Congressional Testimony, Chinese Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy pg lexis)
China's rulers seek to move as much of the world's manufacturing base to their country as possible, thus increasing the PRC's "comprehensive national strength" at the same time that it undermines U.S. national security by hollowing out America's industrial base in general and key defense-related sectors of the economy in particular. China will not lightly abandon this policy, which strengthens China as it weakens the U.S., and is an integral part of China's drive for Hegemony. China is Acquiring the Means to Project Force Far Beyond Taiwan. Many of China's military modernization efforts supersonic anti- ship cruise missiles, stealthy submarines, theater based missiles with terminal guidance systems are aimed specifically at U.S. forces and bases. By is acquiring weapons designed to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities, the PRC is clearly preparing for a contest with the United States. Beijing is interested in deterring, delaying, or complicating U.S. assistance to Taiwan in the event of an invasion, so as to force a quick capitulation by the democratically elected Taiwan government. But while the near-term focus is Taiwan, many of China's new lethal capabilities are
The ruthless mercantilism practiced by the CCP is thus a form of economic warfare. applicable to a wide range of potential operations beyond the Taiwan Strait. As the 2005 Report to Congress of the USCC report notes, "China is in the midst of an extensive force modernization program aimed at increasing its force projection capabilities and confronting U.S. and allied forces in the region."

The rapid growth in China's military power not only threatens Taiwan and by

implication . but U.S. allies throughout the Asian Pacific region. China possesses regional, even global ambitions, and is building a first-rate military to realize those ambitions. It is naive to view the PRC's military build-up as "merely" part of the preparations for an invasion of Taiwan in which American military assets in the Asian- Pacific will have to be neutralized.

the U.S

And an all out war causes extinction Cheong 2k (Ching, Senior Writer at the Strait Times, No one gains in a war over Taiwan, June 25th,
Lexis) THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. . If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China, 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for

Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilization.

AT: Plan Solves Econ

1. Link outweighs the turn Dutch Disease outweighs short-term economic benefits. Scaling Green 6/8/12 (Lowell F, Could U.S. Oil and Gas Boom Lead to Dutch Disease in U.S. Economy?,
http://scalinggreen.com/2012/06/could-u-s-oil-and-gas-boom-lead-to-dutch-disease-in-u-s-economy/)

The question is, will Dutch Disease happen in the United States as well, given the boom in oil and natural gas production going on here? According to the American Security Project, at the minimum the United States needs to keep an eye open for signs of trouble, while considering whether there is anything else that the government should do to alleviate or avoid a currency appreciation that harms manufacturing. The broader point is that increased oil and gas production isnt all upside potential, as fossil fuel boosters would have us believe . In fact, theres significant downside potential as well,
particularly i f

the U.S. economy contracts Dutch Disease as a result.

2. strong manufacturing ensures economic resilience prevents disruptions from inevitable economic shocks Ettlinger, 11 [Michael, Vice President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress Prior to
joining the Center, he spent six years at the Economic Policy Institute directing the Economic Analysis and Research Network. Previously, he was tax policy director for Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy for 11 years. He has also served on the staff of the New York State Assembly. The Importance and Promise of American Manufacturing Why It Matters if We Make It in America and Where We Stand Today, http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/04/pdf/manufacturing.pdf] Manufacturing is critical ly important to the American economy . For generations, the strength of our country rested on the power of our factory floorsboth the machines and the men and women who worked them. We need manufacturing to continue to be a bedrock of strength for generations to come. Manufacturing is woven into the structure of our economy : Its importance goes far beyond what happens behind the factory gates. The strength or weakness of American manufacturing carries implications for the entire economy , our national security, and the well-being of all Americans. Manufacturing today accounts for 12 percent of the U.S. economy and about 11 percent of the private-sector workforce. But its significance is even greater than
these numbers would suggest. The direct impact of manufacturing is only a part of the picture. First, jobs in the manufacturing sector are good middle-class jobs for millions of Americans. Those jobs serve an important role, offering economic opportunity to hard-working, middle-skill workers. This creates upward mobility and broadens and strengthens the middle class to the benefit of the entire economy. Whats more, U.S.-based

manufacturing underpins a

broad range of jobs that are quite different from the usual image of manufacturing. These are higherskill service jobs that include the accountants, bankers, and lawyers that are associated with any industry, as well as a broad range of other jobs including basic research and technology development, product and process engineering and design, operations and maintenance, transportation, testing, and lab work. Many of these jobs are critical to American technology and innovation leadership. The
problem today is this: Many multinational corporations may for a period keep these higher-skill jobs here at home while they move basic manufacturing elsewhere in response to other countries subsidies, the search for cheaper labor costs, and the desire for more direct access to overs eas markets, but eventually many of these service jobs will follow. When the basic manufacturing

leaves, the feedback loop from the manufacturing floor

to the rest of a manufacturing operationa critical element in the innovative process is eventually broken . To maintain that feedback loop, companies need to move higher-skill jobs to where they do their manufacturing. And with those jobs goes American leadership in technology and innovation. This is why having a critical mass of both manufacturing and associated service jobs in the United States matters. The industrial

commons that comes from the crossfertilization and engagement of a community of experts in industry, academia, and government is vital to our nations economic competitiveness . Manufacturing also is important for the nations economic stability. The experience of the Great Recession exemplifies this point. Although manufacturing plunged in 2008 and early 2009 along with the rest of the economy, it is on the rebound today while other key economic sectors, such as construction, still languish. Diversity in the economy is importantand manufacturing is a particularly important part of the mix. Although manufacturing is
certainly affected by broader economic events, the sectors internal diversitysupplying consumer goods as well as industrial goods, serving both domestic and external markets gives it great potential resiliency. Finally, supplying

our own needs through a strong domestic manufacturing sector protects us from international economic and political disruptions. This is most obviously
important in the realm of national security, even narrowly defined as matters related to military strength, where the risk of a weak manufacturing capability is obvious. But overreliance

on imports and substantial manufacturing trade deficits weaken us in many ways, making us vulnerable to everything from exchange rate fluctuations to trade embargoes to natural disasters.

3. Manufacturing outweighs commodities stability LeVine 6/7/12 (Steve, Environment & Energy Publishing, A cautionary tale for U.S. energy policy unfolds in the Land
Down Under, http://eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/06/07/2)

Yet some analysts worry about allowing manufacturing to wither. Cyclical commodities can plummet in price as well as go up, as the global market is currently demonstrating . In addition, coal competition from the
United States, Mongolia, Russia, Colombia and Indonesia is eroding Australia's dominant place in the regional market. U.S. and Mozambique gas producers have plans to ship large volumes of LNG to Asia.

AT: LNG Good (Econ)

Not enough jobs are created Krugman 12 (Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and
continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics., 3/15/2012, "Natural Born Drillers", www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-borndrillers.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Meanwhile, what

about jobs? I have to admit that I started laughing when I saw The Wall Street Journal offering North Dakota as a role model. Yes, the oil boom there has pushed unemployment down to 3.2 percent, but thats only possible because the whole state has fewer residents than metropolitan Albany so few residents that adding a few thousand jobs in the states extractive sector is a really big deal. The comparable-sized fracking boom in Pennsylvania has had hardly any effect on the states overall employment picture, because, in the end, not that many jobs are involved. And this tells us that giving the oil companies carte blanche isnt a serious jobs program. Put it this way: Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen more than 50 percent since the middle of the last decade, but that amounts to only 70,000 jobs, around onetwentieth of 1 percent of total U.S. employment. So the idea that drill, baby, drill can cure our jobs deficit is

basically a joke .

At best .2% of growth Levi 11 (Michael A. Levi David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment,
9/28/2011, "Do Americas Future Jobs Lie in Traditional Energy?", blogs.cfr.org/levi/2011/09/28/doamericas-future-jobs-lie-in-traditional-energy/)
Ultimately, though,

a sense of scale is essential. This blog shared some back of the envelope numbers a couple weeks ago that suggested that a massive extractives boom might at best add about 0.2% directly to national GDP growth, barring very big increases in the price of oil and other mined commodities. Thats not the sort of thing that makes a decisive difference to employment. Potentially more important is the possible impact on oil prices (in tandem
with steadily more aggressive fuel economy standards), though

again, its difficult to paint a picture where U.S. actions yield overwhelming change. Bright spots are always welcome where people are struggling, but its dangerous to extrapolate them to a point that yields false hope.