THBT India should substantially ease restrictions on Chinese trade and investment

INTRODUCTION

PROVERB

“there's no faster way to get burned than staring into the dragon's mouth and no more embarrassing way to get burnt than doing it twice”

Can be replaced with honestly anything

(1) The first question I want to ask is why is China an unreliable and dangerous trade partner ?

I want to flag from the beginning that proposition does not clear their initial burden of proof 

The gov side didn’t tackle one of our main points 

 burden of proof: When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

Accomplishes two things:
a) It’s something they should have clarified even if we(opp) didn’t point it out 

b) Creates a foundational pillar for Gov’s case and rebuts it 

We point out that China is particularly dry of capital because a whole host of internal crises and failed (O)BRI Investments have left it illiquid

Summarizes their’s (Opp) main response  

So it doesn't matter if they can offer you long-term debts because what it's not about the time Horizon by which you can pay back it's that China has no money to give you 

Somewhat circulatory and avoids the main question.

Can be Improved by: 

The loans are given out in "phases"

Refutes Gov’s claim that Chinese loans are better as they can be paid back much later compared to Western Investment  

Meta Debating 

Their strategy and response is to debate in parallel. Counter assert a

bunch of reasons why the West is weak to which weaken a certain infinite number of reasons why the West is strong 

The way you can resolve this issue then is through three different metrics from me 

Tells the judge how to break this deadlock

A) first compare the extent and likely speed of recovery

Analysis

so yes the US is facing some inflation it has that much more under control it has non-hostile

and rapidly growing Tech sector that has largely been unaffected by the inflation and even unaffected by the pandemic to a great extent

The US is less affected by global financial hurdles 

Impact

All of this is to suggest that all of the mechanisms available to the US are such that it's going to be able to recover faster and  much quicker than China can at a more reliable rate 

B)The second way to compare this is to talk about risk 

1st Claim
Unreliable Capital even if China has it, is infinitely worse than a smaller but steady stream of capital from the West 

East VS West investment

Reason
because of the massive opportunity cost of a collapse and……..

Potential negative impact from of an economic collapse 

Example 

if you want to talk about intuition here think about it when SVB failed it was immediately bought out 

Analysis

because there is a robust and diversified network of banks in the US which continue to keep the money flowing whenever Grant failed every major Chinese Bank was affected because they were all exposed to the same volatile property market 

 Reasons why US is better at handling financial pitfalls than China 

Impact

so it is a structural risk of contingent that China hasn't made significant steps towards improving
2nd Claim
but the second thing to note is about political risk
Analysis

let's say the best case happens and you are able for some Indian firms to

infiltrate the Chinese market the problem with that is that there's a limit to success in China the CCP is never going to let acute growth such a size that you will be able to reasonably compete with its national champions even if you are the biggest cell phone provider in India you will never be allowed to get to the same scale as Huawei and that's the problem with Chinese Capital it's volatile and subject to the whims of the CCP that you have far less control and transparency

3rd Claim

Over the third weighing metric here is to talk about the nature of investing. We answer the question they don't which is what will the Chinese money go into when they say well it's not a debate about protectionism because then you can just protect the sectors that are important. The problem with that is that those are the sectors that Chinese money would flow into so if you are going to protect every sector that's important every sector with potential then it's not clear why China has any incentive to invest in you the more reasonable framing here is that you would have to make some concessions let China come into your Tech Market let China come into your manufacturing Market even if those markets have the potential to expand and be massive in the future these are the kinds of concessions that we explain are particularly dangerous to make especially when China's interests through a large degree overlap with yours that's when you fail the competition that's when you lose out on massive benefits but even if you don't believe any of those three weighing metrics,

Here's the flip, increased Financial instability in the west only makes China an even riskier trade partner because the mistake of Opposition is to assume that these two markets are separate when in reality they aren't. When the U.S inflationary crisis happened we also saw a large suffering of Chinese stocks lots of Chinese businesses like Alibaba rely on technology and services that are provided by U.S companies.Their financial markets are intertwined to a great extent as we point out over and over again so just because the West is doing bad that doesn't necessarily mean that you can Bank on China as the next best bet because China hasn't established itself as an independent and trustworthy actor. So if anything, all of their material for why the West is collapsing is value neutral in the debate at best. 

So at the end of this issue what are you actually comparing and why is there a lot of Western or at least domestic investment we can access

(1)the first thing we point out is that the failure of Western firms even if you believe their characterization doesn't necessarily prove that there's no Capital all it means is that there's no interest or incentive to invest in Western firms right now if anything I'd suggest that increases the attractiveness of firms abroad and investment in places like India so you have more Capital freed up just because interest rates are rising right now doesn't mean people stop investing as a whole. There's a lower pool of investment we explain why that investment is likely to go to India (2)But the second thing we point out is regardless of what happens in the west they still have large control over the financial world right like who gives you IMF loans who decides which things can bail you out these are all institutions which are largely still affected by the decisions made by Western countries which is why if anything you outside with them
(3) the third thing we point out is that there's increased concentration of resources in India as the stable South Asian hub as you see like Nations like Bangladesh and Pakistan become more unreliable which is why the West is focusing on consolidating its presence in India as it is increasingly interested in them. So at the end of this issue what you are say uh what you have to know is if you are unconvinced whether one actor is more stable or has more Capital than the other what you ought to be weighing on is the pace at recovery and the reliability of those actors 

I'll take the poi

POI

“the problem with trading of a small amount of money from the West is that that small amount will never lay out complete China or the West so you end up defining globally on the comparative we have mechanisms to write the Chinese tiger and stand the chance of progressing where there's no problem with that no capital is an external problem that you can fix” 

I'm not sure why China is giving you the big amount that you need right because if China is willing to give you this money anyways because you're blocking off the sectors that they want to invest in you are not getting that money either but also when we say small amount that's relative

right it's still billions of dollars coming into a few frames that can be life-changing for one Tech startup that is on the brink of discovering some kind of innovation that would allow it to become a market leader like Infosys for example in the 2000s. Second issue then let's talk about security and India's domestic interests the golf claim here is to suggest that interaction with China will moderate the bjp and Modi while at the same time raise the capital Indian firms need to expand 

So engaging with the POI, I have a couple of responses here that take this out throughout. The first thing to note is that this relies on an unrealistic the characterization of the BJP so yeah Modi might say he's anti-colonial but he's also very anti-china the reason we know that is because he was the one who imposed the restrictions in the first place if anything I'd suggest that Modi becomes more volatile and more militaristic because he can use the influx of Chinese Capital to justify increased spending on the military and drum up national fervor he can say oh the Chinese own our factories they're taking away our businesses they're taking away the profits that Indian workers have made for them and thus use that to win re-election so he becomes more volatile the second thing I'd point out is that economic interaction in this

debate does not equal stability. In fact history has shown the opposite it's a tactic of China to exert influence and prevent aggressive retaliation when the shareholders of your companies are all Chinese it's unlikely that they're going to support any attempt to get them out we offer growth we offer sustainability and we offer stability side with OPP