Verbatim Mac

Trade

Alt causes – tariffs

1NC 1 and 2 – US-China already locked into trade war over steel exports, even smaller industries like chicken and steel subsidization contribute to trade hostility  Chinese protectionism means it will keep the subsidies, making trade war inevitable - Connars and Talley. Prefer our ev <>

Steel protectionism results in trade war between US and China

Murray 16 (Lisa news specialising in Asia, the world and trade, 6-23-2016, "Trade war looms as China lashes US over 500pc steel tariffs," Financial Review, http://www.afr.com/news/world/trade-war-looms-as-china-lashes-us-over-500pc-steel-tariffs-20160623-gpq76z#)//SZ

China has accused the United States of protectionism after Washington approved plans to hit Chinese steelmakers with tariffs of more than 500 per cent, raising the prospect of a global trade war. The prospect of a steel trade war is bad news for troubled South Australian steelmaker Arrium, which has had to go cap in hand to the state and federal governments for a bailout. Cheap Chinese steel kept out of the US could be diverted to the Australian market and the Australian government could come under similar diplomatic pressure to the US if it tries to keep it out. Australia already has penalties tariffs on many Chinese steel imports of over 50 percent. China's Ministry of Commerce said on Thursday it was "deeply concerned" about trade practices in the US steel sector, claiming that by the end of April the US had already imposed as many as 161 protective tariffs on Chinese steel products. "Increasing trade protection will only escalate tension and conflict," the ministry said in a statement on its website. "It will not help to solve the problem." The comments followed a ruling out of the US on Wednesday by the International Trade Commission, an independent government agency, which found that imports of some steel products from China and Japan were unfairly subsidised and sold for less than fair value. International diversified mining and materials company comprising of three key businesses: Arrium Mining, Arrium Mining Consumables and OneSteel Steel & Recycling. As a result, the US Commerce Department will be allowed to slap Chinese steelmakers with tariffs as high as 522 per cent on cold-rolled flat steel that is used to make cars and appliances. Japanese producers will also be hit with additional duties of more than 70 per cent.

Steel tariff effects other countries– aff can’t resolve global trade war

Home, 4-22-2016 (Andy, reuters, "Is the world sliding toward a steel trade war?," http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-steel-ahome-idUSKCN0XH19A)//SZ

The problem is that bilateral sanctions don't work in a commodity supply chain such as steel. Chinese exports hit not just the United States but other big Asian steel producers such as South Korea and Japan, which respond by stepping up exports. India and Japan have already clashed in the World Trade Organization over the former's move in February to set a floor price for steel imports. In Australia, where local steel maker Arrium has just gone into administration, the government has already applied 41 anti-dumping measures to imported steel products, including 13 for China and eight for South Korea. In the steel industry such a proliferation of trade sanctions is commonly known as "whack-a-mole", a reference to the popular game in which the player has to hit a mole that appears randomly from a series of holes. What it means is that one set of bilateral sanctions immediately causes a change in steel flows to affect another country, which in turn initiates its own penalties on cheap imports. This process has not only started but is gathering global momentum as every country seeks to protect its own steel sector. A global dialogue on steel restructuring is surely the right way to prevent a full-scale global trade war. But with China unwilling and unable to sacrifice its broader goals of economic growth and stability to steel policy, the danger is that it will be a dialogue of the mutually deaf.

No Trade War

1NC 3 – no trade war – Solar isn’t big enough to even trigger tit for tat retaliation – WTO norms and interdependency resolves solar conflict – Ikenson 12. Prefer our ev <>

Trade collapse doesn’t cause conflict

Fletcher 11 Ian Fletcher is Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, former Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council M.A. and B.A. from Columbia and U Chicago, "Avoid Trade War? We're Already In One!" August 29 2011 www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/avoid-trade-war-were-alre_b_939967.html
The curious thing about the concept of trade war is that, unlike actual shooting war, it has no historical precedent. In fact, there has never been a significant trade war, "significant" in the sense of having done serious economic damage. All history records are minor skirmishes at best.¶ Go ahead. Try and name a trade war. The Great Trade War of 1834? Nope. The Great Trade War of 1921? Nope Again. There isn't one.¶ The standard example free traders give is that America's Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 either caused the Great Depression or made it spread around the world. But this canard does not survive serious examination, and has actually been denied by almost every economist who has actually researched the question in depth -- a group ranging from Paul Krugman on the left to Milton Friedman on the right.¶ The Depression's cause was monetary. The Fed allowed the money supply to balloon during the late 1920s, piling up in the stock market as a bubble. It then panicked, miscalculated, and let it collapse by a third by 1933, depriving the economy of the liquidity it needed to breathe. Trade had nothing to do with it.¶ As for the charge that Smoot caused the Depression to spread worldwide: it was too small a change to have plausibly so large an effect. For a start, it only applied to about one-third of America's trade: about 1.3 percent of our GDP. Our average tariff on dutiable goods went from 44.6 to 53.2 percent -- not a terribly big jump. Tariffs were higher in almost every year from 1821 to 1914. Our tariff went up in 1861, 1864, 1890, and 1922 without producing global depressions, and the recessions of 1873 and 1893 managed to spread worldwide without tariff increases.¶ As the economic historian (and free trader!) William Bernstein puts it in his book A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World,¶ Between 1929 and 1932, real GDP fell 17 percent worldwide, and by 26 percent in the United States, but most economic historians now believe that only a miniscule part of that huge loss of both world GDP and the United States' GDP can be ascribed to the tariff wars. .. At the time of Smoot-Hawley's passage, trade volume accounted for only about 9 percent of world economic output. Had all international trade been eliminated, and had no domestic use for the previously exported goods been found, world GDP would have fallen by the same amount -- 9 percent. Between 1930 and 1933, worldwide trade volume fell off by one-third to one-half. Depending on how the falloff is measured, this computes to 3 to 5 percent of world GDP, and these losses were partially made up by more expensive domestic goods. Thus, the damage done could not possibly have exceeded 1 or 2 percent of world GDP -- nowhere near the 17 percent falloff seen during the Great Depression... The inescapable conclusion: contrary to public perception, Smoot-Hawley did not cause, or even significantly deepen, the Great Depression.¶ The oft-bandied idea that Smoot-Hawley started a global trade war of endless cycles of tit-for-tat retaliation is also mythical. According to the official State Department report on this very question in 1931:¶ With the exception of discriminations in France, the extent of discrimination against American commerce is very slight...By far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way.¶ That is to say, foreign nations did indeed raise their tariffs after the passage of Smoot, but this was a broad-brush response to the Depression itself, aimed at all other foreign nations without distinction, not a retaliation against the U.S. for its own tariff. The doom-loop of spiraling tit-for-tat retaliation between trading partners that paralyzes free traders with fear today simply did not happen.¶ "Notorious" Smoot-Hawley is a deliberately fabricated myth, plain and simple. We should not allow this myth to paralyze our policy-making in the present day.¶ There is a basic unresolved paradox at the bottom of the very concept of trade war. If, as free traders insist, free trade is beneficial whether or not one's trading partners reciprocate, then why would any rational nation start one, no matter how provoked? The only way to explain this is to assume that major national governments like the Chinese and the U.S. -- governments which, whatever bad things they may have done, have managed to hold nuclear weapons for decades without nuking each other over trivial spats -- are not players of realpolitik, but schoolchildren.¶ When the moneymen in Beijing, Tokyo, Berlin, and the other nations currently running trade surpluses against the U.S. start to ponder the financial realpolitik of exaggerated retaliation against the U.S. for any measures we may employ to bring our trade back into balance, they will discover the advantage is with us, not them. Because they are the ones with trade surpluses to lose, not us.¶ So our present position of weakness is, paradoxically, actually a position of strength.¶ Likewise, China can supposedly suddenly stop buying our Treasury Debt if we rock the boat. But this would immediately reduce the value of the trillion or so they already hold -- not to mention destroying, by making their hostility overt, the fragile (and desperately-tended) delusion in the U.S. that America and China are still benign economic "partners" in a win-win economic relationship.¶ At the end of the day, China cannot force us to do anything economically that we don't choose to. America is still a nuclear power. We can -- an irresponsible but not impossible scenario -- repudiate our debt to them (or stop paying the interest) as the ultimate counter-move to anything they might contemplate. More plausibly, we might simply restore the tax on the interest on foreign-held bonds that was repealed in 1984 thanks to Treasury Secretary Donald Regan.¶ Thus a certain amount of back-and-forth token retaliation (and loud squealing) is indeed likely if America starts defending its interests in trade as diligently as our trading partners have been defending theirs, but that's it. The rest of the world engages in these struggles all the time without doing much harm; it will be no different if we join the party

hgfd

Ian Fletcher, 3-8-2016 (Ian Fletcher is a former Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council M.A. and B.A. from Columbia and U Chicago, “Free Traders Can’t Name a Single Trade War," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/free-traders-cant-name-a_b_9409890.html)//SZ

Failed 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been claiming that Donald Trump’s (and by logical implication, Bernie Sanders’) proposed rejection of free trade would start a trade war and tip America into recession. Economists Paul Krugman and Howard Richman have both neatly summarized why this simply isn’t how the economics works, even if a trade war does happen, so I won’t repeat their points here. But I have a simpler one: Trade wars are mythical. They simply do not happen. If you google “the trade war of,” you won’t find any historical examples. There was no Austro-Korean Trade War of 1638, Panamanian-Brazilian Trade War of 1953 or any others. History is devoid of them. Please don’t respond with that old canard about the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 starting a trade war and causing the Great Depression. It doesn’t stand up, as actual economic historians from Milton Friedman on the right to Paul Krugman on the left have documented. See here, and here, and here. The Depression’s cause was monetary. The Fed allowed the money supply to balloon during the late 1920s, piling up in the stock market as a bubble. It then panicked, miscalculated, and let it collapse by a third by 1933, depriving the economy of the liquidity it needed to breathe. A wave of bank failures in 1930 spread the collapse around the country. Trade had nothing to do with it. As for the charge that Smoot caused the Depression to spread worldwide: it was too small a change to have plausibly so large an effect. For a start, it only applied to about one-third of America’s trade: about 1.3 percent of GDP. Our average tariff on dutiable goods went from 44.6 to 53.2 percent—not a large jump. Tariffs were higher in almost every year from 1821 to 1914. Our tariff went up in 1861, 1864, 1890, and 1922 without producing global depressions, and the recessions of 1873 and 1893 managed to spread worldwide absent tariff increases. Neither does the myth of a spiral of retaliation by foreign nations stand up. According to the official State Department report on this question in 1931: With the exception of discriminations in France, the extent of discrimination against American commerce is very slight...By far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way. Trade wars are an invented concept, a bogeyman invented to push free trade. The giveaway, of course, is that free traders claim both that a) trade wars are a terrible threat we must constantly worry about, and b) it’s obvious no nation can ever gain anything from having one. Think about that for minute.

Economic self-interest prevents global trade wars

Jones 14 (a senior fellow and the director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at Brookings and a consulting professor at the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University)
(Still Ours to Lead: America, Rising Powers, and the Tension Between Rivalry and Restraint, Kindle Edition)

And it is important to highlight that the emerging powers are not the only countries for which trade is a growing percentage of GDP— it is true as well for the United States. The current U.S. trade/ GDP ratio is 25 percent. From one vantage point, that looks like a country much less integrated into the global economy than the rest of the trillionaires’ club. But here is another vantage point: in 1989 that number was 15 percent— so there has been a 60 percent rise in U.S. integration into the global economy over the past two decades. And there are strong indications that that number will continue to rise. 17 This deepening trade dependence creates shared incentives, to protect the health of the global economy and restrain competitive tendencies. In spite of the fact that countries seek to adapt globalization to their interests, they are constrained by their deep integration into it. Jones, Bruce (2014-03-17). Still Ours to Lead: America, Rising Powers, and the Tension between Rivalry and Restraint (p. 63). Brookings Institution Press. Kindle Edition.

Trade No Solve War

Trade may improve wealth and peace in the short term, but resource dominance ultimately drives war – Globalization and trade interdependency isn’t mutually exclusive with military conflicts, WWI and II prove – Martin

Trade doesn’t solve war – historical examples prove

Paul Krugman, 8-14-2008 (Professor at Graduate Center Economics PhD program, Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economic sciences, "The Great Illusion," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/opinion/15krugman.html)//SZ

Some analysts tell us not to worry: global economic integration itself protects us against war, they argue, because successful trading economies won’t risk their prosperity by engaging in military adventurism. But this, too, raises unpleasant historical memories. Shortly before World War I another British author, Norman Angell, published a famous book titled “The Great Illusion,” in which he argued that war had become obsolete, that in the modern industrial era even military victors lose far more than they gain. He was right — but wars kept happening anyway. So are the foundations of the second global economy any more solid than those of the first? In some ways, yes. For example, war among the nations of Western Europe really does seem inconceivable now, not so much because of economic ties as because of shared democratic values. Much of the world, however, including nations that play a key role in the global economy, doesn’t share those values. Most of us have proceeded on the belief that, at least as far as economics goes, this doesn’t matter — that we can count on world trade continuing to flow freely simply because it’s so profitable. But that’s not a safe assumption. Angell was right to describe the belief that conquest pays as a great illusion. But the belief that economic rationality always prevents war is an equally great illusion. And today’s high degree of global economic interdependence, which can be sustained only if all major governments act sensibly, is more fragile than we imagine.

No Econ Impact

1NC 6 & 7 – Historical evidence proves economic collapse doesn’t increase potential for conflict – Miller 2k. Trade collapse refocuses on domestic industry rather than scapegoating other countries

Econ decline doesn’t cause war

Barnett 9 (senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC, contributing editor/online columnist for Esquire)

(Thomas P.M, “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis,” Aprodex, Asset Protection Index, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape.

None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions.

Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends.

And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces.