poop
1NR
CASE
Solvency
Cuban default would erode support for further trade normalization.
United States International Trade Commission 2007 Estimated Effect on U.S. Sales of Agricultural Products to Cuba if Restrictions on Financing were Lifted , http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3932.pdf
Mr. Kavulich said that policy changes needed to improve trade between the two countries would require Cuban reform, and not reform in the United States. Mr. Kavulich testified that limited investment in tourism infrastructure under the Cuban government has left Havana and the country incapable of handling the influx of tourists. Given minimum-standard hotel accommodations and the fact that most cruise ship tourists are being accommodated onboard their vessels, he testified that a significant increase in demand for high value, high-quality
U.S. products is unlikely. The “cash only” sales provision in U.S. law is warranted, in his opinion, due to concerns of U.S. firms that a Cuban default would likely erode support for improved trade normalization. Further, according to Mr. Kavulich, regulations limiting exports to agricultural food products and health care products have not been substantially limiting. -ALSO CUBA NOT BEING CREDITWORTHY IS STILL RELEVANT BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT US COMPANIES WON’T WANT TO INVEST INTO RECEIVING AGRICULTURE FROM CUBA BECAUSE THEY WON’T SEE MASSIVE RETURNS LIKE THEY HAVE ELSEWHERE, THAT’S WHY CASH IN ADVANCE SALE RESTRICTIONS EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, EVEN FOR GSP.
CUBAN ECONOMY
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THEY DROP THAN ANY INCREASE IN AGRICULTURE SALES WOULD HAVE A NEGLIGABLE EFFECT ON THE CUBAN ECONOMY, IT WOULDN’T BE KEY WHAT SO EVER WHICH DIRECTLY RESPONDS TO ALL OF THE CARDS THAT THEY SHADOW EXTEND FROM THE 1AC. Furthermore, there wouldn’t be a boost to agriculture sales, that’s what messina talks about the affirmative massively overestimates the amount of investment that the US will be putting towards cuba
CASE
Solvency
Cuban default would erode support for further trade normalization.
United States International Trade Commission 2007 Estimated Effect on U.S. Sales of Agricultural Products to Cuba if Restrictions on Financing were Lifted , http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3932.pdf
Mr. Kavulich said that policy changes needed to improve trade between the two countries would require Cuban reform, and not reform in the United States. Mr. Kavulich testified that limited investment in tourism infrastructure under the Cuban government has left Havana and the country incapable of handling the influx of tourists. Given minimum-standard hotel accommodations and the fact that most cruise ship tourists are being accommodated onboard their vessels, he testified that a significant increase in demand for high value, high-quality
U.S. products is unlikely. The “cash only” sales provision in U.S. law is warranted, in his opinion, due to concerns of U.S. firms that a Cuban default would likely erode support for improved trade normalization. Further, according to Mr. Kavulich, regulations limiting exports to agricultural food products and health care products have not been substantially limiting. -ALSO CUBA NOT BEING CREDITWORTHY IS STILL RELEVANT BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT US COMPANIES WON’T WANT TO INVEST INTO RECEIVING AGRICULTURE FROM CUBA BECAUSE THEY WON’T SEE MASSIVE RETURNS LIKE THEY HAVE ELSEWHERE, THAT’S WHY CASH IN ADVANCE SALE RESTRICTIONS EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, EVEN FOR GSP.
CUBAN ECONOMY
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THEY DROP THAN ANY INCREASE IN AGRICULTURE SALES WOULD HAVE A NEGLIGABLE EFFECT ON THE CUBAN ECONOMY, IT WOULDN’T BE KEY WHAT SO EVER WHICH DIRECTLY RESPONDS TO ALL OF THE CARDS THAT THEY SHADOW EXTEND FROM THE 1AC. Furthermore, there wouldn’t be a boost to agriculture sales, that’s what messina talks about the affirmative massively overestimates the amount of investment that the US will be putting towards cuba