I acknowledge that.. but realize that environmental preservation and restoration takes a lot more time and effort than you may think, and strictly referring to the current US fiscal situation and the half a trillion dollar deficit, obviously we can't spare any money now to protect the environment.. maybe when times are better...

Anyways, what this argument boils down to is long term versus short term, focusing on economics rather than environment helps us in the short term but kills us in the long term, while the converse helps us in the long term but will ruin things in the short term

So, think about this, we spend a lot of resources and we protect a lot of the environment; meanwhile, our economy goes down the drain, budget cuts in education, health care, social security, because all the money is being spent on the environment, sure we'd have a cleaner environment, more resources, but our standard of living will ultimately decrease

much of the deficit comes from the war..the us is spending so much on it that other things like quality of life, education and enviroment get less attention. if your pre-occupied with other things like war then the quality of life can't help but go down

Hmm...I suppose people aren't considering the resolution. It doesn' say specifically any country; it applies universally as Minda (ComradeRed) said. Also, it's not choosing sides here, but simply asking which is more important; which the government has an obligation to. I'm just keeping you on track here.

Oh, and about long-term, short-term...how long are we talking about here? A long time, right? Long enough to have the economy stable and for there to be enough time and money to spend on the environment.

Precedence means which should come FIRST. You can argue that the environment is more important, but we still have to develop the economy FIRST to protect the environment, and still negate, or vice versa. If one's better short-term and the other's better long-term, you have to support the short-term one in this res.

Minda, about your focusing-on-the-economy-doesn't-guarantee-a-good-economy argument: in how many actual instances are there that a government focuses on economy, and it still doesn't improve?

MOST of the time the government focuses on helping the economy it doesn't work out.

Soviet Russia
Red China
Herbert Hoover over here in the United States
"Corporate" Welfare, the Farm Bill, et.c

The economy is something best left to the free market. You should affirm the resolution beacuse protecting the environment (the "commons") is better done by public entites, whereas the economy is made up of PRIVATE entities, and thus it is better to let the free market take care fo that with no government interference.

BUT if the government focuses on the environment and imposes strict regulations on companies in order to save the environment, wouldnt that have severely deterimental effects on the economy?

If you pass NO laws regarding economy, and only pass ONE law prohibiting toxic waste dumping, you are still promoting the environment above teh economy. You don't have to promote the environment a lot, just more than the economy.

But that would still hinder the companies that need to dump toxic waste and thus it still adversely affects the economy

Precedence means which should come FIRST. You can argue that the environment is more important, but we still have to develop the economy FIRST to protect the environment, and still negate, or vice versa. If one's better short-term and the other's better long-term, you have to support the short-term one in this res

Isnt that what you said? Which side are you taking?

I'm taking the environment side. I say that we need to promote the evnrionment in the short-term to get an economic boost. Moreover, I'm saying that, even though I believe the economy IS more important than the evnironment, the government will only screw up the economy, whereas it could help the environment, since the environment is a public good, wheraes the economy is not.

How is the economy not a public good? The better the economy, the wealthier everyone is and the higher the standard of living

In economics, the definition of a "public good" is a Commons: something that everyone can extract resources from without having to put anything back, i.e. the environment. Nobody owns the environment.

The economy is a private good because it's not free... you have to buy your way into it. You can OWN part of it.

The economy might BENEFIT the whole public, but it is NOT a public good since it is ultimatley owned by private individuals.

Alright, i'll give you that.. now why is it important that it be a public good?

Because a public good (commons) should be managed publically, that is, by the government, to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons from happening (this is very well documented, search for "Tragedy of the Commons" and you can read on it -- quite interesting actually).

However, a private good does not run into the problem of the TotC, and thus is more efficiently managed by its owners, i.e. by private individuals, not the government.

Public goods should be managed by government, private goods by private groups.

See.. you guys actually know stuff about economics and the government.. whereas I'm just kinda bsing my way through these arguments, lol

I disagree, the economy is not just public or private good.

The economy consists of markets, and these markets can be both private and public. The government can be considered as a market because it can sell/buy government bonds.


Privately owned, does not necessarily mean that it's a private good. Privately owned companies may produce output for the public to use (education, health care...etc).

But since we're talking about the economy as a whole, we're talking about private AND public markets combined.

If you mean that the economy is a private good because you can own it... that's not necessarily true either. An economy needs market(s), and markets mean there must a buyer and seller, you cannot just be a seller (owner) and call yourself a market. You're lacking someone to sell your goods to.

Because your privately owned company provides goods are meant to be sold to the public, they are public goods.

I'm confusing myself...

I'm still not seeing why the government shouldnt manage the economy...

Economically, the definition of public good is a "commons" -- something that you can take from freely. That's not what the economy is.

Everyone participates in the economy. It belongs to everyone.

Still

Where do you live, Communismland?

In a capitalist society, the economy is private. ALL INDIVIDUALS each on their own PART of the economy. No one owns it as a whole.

Well, I'm not a outdoor kind of person, but i feel that we already have so much polution and crap because of economy, industry, etc... I think enviornment should be first. I mean, what if the human race dies because of a lack of good enviornment? True, economy effects mankind greatly, and the system is awesome and yea... But, too many people dont go out these days and i think that its partly the economy to blame for this because of all the new technology and stuff coming out. Also, economy goes down but it can always go back up. As for enviornment, once you ruin it, it takes so long and so much hard work to make it fresh and clean again. Also, running down trees for the economy really has an impact on our lives because sooner or later, it will cause the temperatures to rise and all that other junk that comes along with bad enviornment. This is only my opinion tho.

^^ wow im scared to think of what kathleen is going to say. I've noticed that she is like a crazy debater who has her facts straight.

i agree with u, grace... im not that outdoor kind of girl... i think environment shud be first like wat grace said.. it's so slow to get all environment back to its original place... and for like economoy.. as once u lose it u can get it back by jus rebuilding it with other many tools... in environment there are no tools to make something up fast.

And where do you live?

Who would restricts you into participating in the economy? Who's this private owner?

Edit::No one can restrict a person from being a buyer or a seller because the economy is for public use.

Owning a market, DOES NOT mean you own an economy.

Edit:: Remember that our economy is not a pure capitalist either.

Everyone owns PART of the economy. If I buy up a stock exchange, I can restrict you from trading on it--thus I restricted your participation in my part of the economy.

The economy is NOT a public good. And thank God it isn't.

Actually, you buy stock, you would own part of that stock market. Not the economy of stock, because there's no such thing.

The economy is ALL goods produced, and consumed in a given geographic area. I can control part of it. If I control the supply of say, cheap pens, then I can restrict your consumption of them--thus restricting your participation in the economy.

The market IS the economy.