Environment vs. Economy Options

[*Kathleen*]

All right, so since I want to see a different topic out there...this one's from February's Lincoln-Douglas topic:

Resolved: A government's obligation to protect the environment ought to take precedence over its obligation to promote economic development.

I'm on the negative side for this, seeing that only by providing a healthy, stable economy can you be able to help the environment. The products of a good economy are what help improve the environment.

Haha don't worry...I have more points...I've researched both sides to this, so bring it on.

[WildGriffin]

yeah,economy first. but the problem is that the struggle for a great economy could destroy our enviroment, which is somehow bad for all of us kids that are indoors 90% of the day.

[Spirited Away]

This is one of the hardest debates to choose a side for.

I suppose the environment is more important because it's already doing so poorly. The most polluted cities in the world are concentrated in America.

The economy is important, but without health (from clean air and water) how do you suppose we'd run our businesses?

Enviroment came first, as in it supports life in the begining (evolutionary speaking), therefore it should be our priority to keep it clean. Religiously speaking, wouldn't it be wonderful if Earth's environment can be like Paradise's?

[xjjajeengx]

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.

[*NatiMarie*]

Good topic Kathleen. I serioulsy don't even know what I would choose. The economy is important because we greatly depend on it, but the environment is also important because if we disregard the importance of it, we can be left in shambles. I don't know what I would choose, I'll get back on that

--Undecisive Natalie

[*Kathleen*]

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?

Hehe (I'll be nice) more people die from living in poverty because they're government has an unstable economy opposed to how many people actually die from pollution-related causes.

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.

Well, there are also new studies and medical things and whatnot that arise from the good economy.

As for enviornment, once you ruin it, it takes so long and so much hard work to make it fresh and clean again.

Hehe are you talking about that little thing called global warming by any chance? It's funny because scientists in the seventies were complaining about global cooling...turns out they were wrong.

Enviroment came first, as in it supports life in the begining

Are we not supposed to utilize it? It's there for us - we need the economy to survive, and we should use it.

[Spirited Away]

Are we not supposed to utilize it? It's there for us - we need the economy to survive, and we should use it.

No it's not wrong to use it... but...

In economics, the most concern is usually efficiency in the allocation of resources. The environment is a resource and therefore must be used efficiently.

Edit:: but so far, we're not doing a very good job of it.

[xjjajeengx]

Hehe (I'll be nice) more people die from living in poverty because they're government has an unstable economy opposed to how many people actually die from pollution-related causes.

still scary... i dont think i was meant to be a debater.
Well, i think that if the people had more land to live off of then they wouldnt die so much. i mean, i think its like government's fault for taking all the land and cutting down the trees to use the land for buisnesses and to get more money. Yes, money is an important factor, but if people were to base their lives on making the enviornment more better instead of being so money hungry and so economy-ish (hahaha no word for that!! ) i think the world would be better... i mean, other country's economies partly are not stable in economy because stable economies (ike that of U.S.) are so power hungry!! We all came from living off of the land, i think that economy and all this complex stuff coming through made the poor and rich gap larger and stuff (okay, and im like "where does this all fit in?" )

Well, there are also new studies and medical things and whatnot that arise from the good economy.

But there are also many deaths that arise from economy; car accidents soared up because we have so many cars and sometimes very careless drivers who cease to understand the need to drive carefully since their insurance covers everything. Once again, the economy's stability is what puts a huge gap between the poor and the rich, and not to mention puts middle class people at a disadvantage...

Hehe are you talking about that little thing called global warming by any chance?  It's funny because scientists in the seventies were complaining about global cooling...turns out they were wrong.

My bad. But it is proven that trees help cool the temperature down. (i think* i heard this from science class)

Oh man i was right!! Kathleen is a crazy debater!! all her facts are like WHOOSH im working on this debate thing so technically im a newb

[stryker76]

Im boarder lined on this one...i mean yeah a good economy is great...but yeah economy destroys the environment....people in the past survived fine be givin back to the environment what they took from it....and learned to ration them selves so the didnt kill ne one thing off totally......and really if the environment goes then there will be no economy because there will be no natrual resources to use....

Oh and on the Global warming thing...yeah its a real thing...just not as it was originally proposed.....today there is Global warming and Ozone Holes.....Global Warming is a really thing CO2 in the Earths atmosphere trapping UV radiation heating the earth a lil bit.....Ozone Layer Depletion is what was debated in the 70's and still is it wasnt wrong but they have also found that it is a natrual cycle in the earths atmosphere....the cycle of it renewing it self cuz Ozone (O3 for those in Chem) is made when O2 is super heated extremely fast....Lightening....so yeah it is all good there....but Global warming is a lil issue still

[tkproduce]

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure - Agent Smith in "The Matrix"

[WildGriffin]

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure. - Agent Smith in "The Matrix"

I love that quote with a passion. When I first heard it I almost sprang a rubbery one. yeah......

[*Kathleen*]

Oh and on the Global warming thing...yeah its a real thing...just not as it was originally proposed.....today there is Global warming and Ozone Holes.....Global Warming is a really thing CO2 in the Earths atmosphere trapping UV radiation heating the earth a lil bit.....Ozone Layer Depletion is what was debated in the 70's and still is it wasnt wrong but they have also found that it is a natrual cycle in the earths atmosphere....the cycle of it renewing it self cuz Ozone (O3 for those in Chem) is made when O2 is super heated extremely fast....Lightening....so yeah it is all good there....but Global warming is a lil issue still

Hehe I know global warming actually exists - I was simply pointing out how they made such a big deal out of global cooling in the seventies when it turns out to not even be true. With global warming, tests have shown it has risen higher before, when global warming wasn't a threat:

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure - Agent Smith in "The Matrix"

Hah...well, even though I know what you're getting at...it's a movie! Besides, we still plant trees and whatnot...we have laws that make sure you don't deplete the environment until it's no longer useable.

[WildGriffin]

we have laws that make sure you don't deplete the environment until it's no longer useable.

To fake the tree huggers into thinking we'd compromise economy for enviroment. Oh, they're tranquil now, but when the hippies learn that their tree planting is futile BAM. all major cities get swamped with smelly hippies "protesting".

[*Kathleen*]

Haha...pft...everyone has to obey the laws!

[tkproduce]

I hope you people know that plants respire (I'm using the biology term. "repire" here does NOT mean "breathe in and out") just like us - they use oxygen to convert glucose into energy and give off carbon dioxide. Especially at night when there is no sunlight, plants behave just like us, taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. So in effect, planting a tree may not change anything at all - photosynthesis may produce oxygen, but if we compare the volume of oxygen the tree has produced during it's lifetime with the volume of carbon dioxide it produced via respiration and during it's decomposition after it's death, the net difference may be negligible. Significant differences are seen when there are a vast number of plants - like the rainforests.

just leave enough environment so that if we ever do finish our science homework that we can go outside and b-r-e-a-t-h-e

[WildGriffin]

like the rainforests

"f*ck the rainforest"
-Jennifer Aniston, South Park

[*Kathleen*]

Ah, yes, tk - I forgot to mention that, but still...some of those plants are used for scientific studies to create medicines we use today. Also, I think some people are forgetting that the economy doesn't directly involve the environment...you can promote economic development in other ways.

[xjjajeengx]

okay im just lost now. im out of this debate. all i can say is good luck to everyone how is opposing kathleen cause NO ONE can beat her.
i applaud you kathleen. MAN... i ahve debate on frikken MONDAY!!! im sooo going to get an F on this, expecially since we're doing like gay/lesbo marriages, religious blahblah (my topic) social studies importance, "does george bush suck", "budget cuts"

IM SO DEAD!! what sucks moe is that practically the whole frikken class is going against my friend ( her bro is gay) in the gay debate thingy. so im going to fight for her except im not shure what side i would pick... cause honestly i can say that i really dont care... soooo *sigh* i wish i could borrow someone's mouth and brain for a few periods to do this.

[*Kathleen*]

Hehe...aww...you'll do great, Grace! Good luck to you! And you give me too much credit. No one likes this topic much, though. Haha.

[Spirited Away]

I like it , I like things with economics.

[ComradeRed]

Just remember that the Earth has seniority over us and you should be fine .

You're the A-Debater on your team Kath, you should be able to argue that pretty well!

[Spirited Away]

No one replied to me, so I had to re-post..

A thousand apologies.

The evironment is a resource and therefore is considered to have limitations. In economics, all resources are considered scarce and should be allocated efficiently. (one of the ten principles of economics)

So you see, even in economics, the evironment is still extremely important, and there should be used efficiently. So that's how I come to the conclusion that the environment is more important than the economy.

[strice]

being a border line hippie, i choose the environment. there are so many ways to avoid destruction of the environment, it just costs more. i dno't think this is a debate to be won.

[tkproduce]

The human race will self destruct anyway, I think. We'll end up spending all our resources and we'll all die out. Not in the near future, so doesn't really bother me

[*Kathleen*]

being a border line hippie, i choose the environment. there are so many ways to avoid destruction of the environment, it just costs more. i dno't think this is a debate to be won.

Do you realize that more people die from the poor economies of their governments opposed to how many die from environment-related issues?

[ComradeRed]

Do you realize that more people die from the poor economies of their governments opposed to how many die from environment-related issues?

But how can you be sure that prioritizing economic growth will actually lead to economic growth and the alleviation of these disesase? Don't the poor in most thidr rworld countries rely directly on the environment to meet their basic needs?

[*Kathleen*]

But how can you be sure that prioritizing economic growth will actually lead to economic growth and the alleviation of these disesase? Don't the poor in most thidr rworld countries rely directly on the environment to meet their basic needs?

Well, when you focus on something, it usually does lead to your goal. Besides, where would they get the money to keep repairing their own environment?

[EmeraldKnight]

haha this topic reminds me of policy debate this year.. see, either we'd screw their plan over on economics or we'd screw them over on environment, cuz its just not possible to fully compromise, we dont live in an idealistic world, it has to be one or the other.. but you can't just pick one in general.. it depends on the situation..

Sure, if the government can afford it, they should focus on environment, because thats what matters in the long run, but considering the current fiscal crisis in the united states right now, with a project $521 billion deficit, i think we can afford to put off the environment for now, more than we can afford to put off economics.. and luckily the judges thought so too

I guess what i'm trying to say is (cuz i cannot be concise if my life depended on it..) that there is no universal priority, it depends on the current situation and which needs more attention at the current moment

[stryker76]

I hope you people know that plants respire (I'm using the biology term. "repire" here does NOT mean "breathe in and out") just like us - they use oxygen to convert glucose into energy and give off carbon dioxide. Especially at night when there is no sunlight, plants behave just like us, taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. So in effect, planting a tree may not change anything at all - photosynthesis may produce oxygen, but if we compare the volume of oxygen the tree has produced during it's lifetime with the volume of carbon dioxide it produced via respiration and during it's decomposition after it's death, the net difference may be negligible. Significant differences are seen when there are a vast number of plants - like the rainforests.

WHOA hold on here...please no false info...no offence i truly do not mean to be rude but plants us CO2 to make there good...the waste of the metabolic process is O2(oxygen) we breathe because of plants...and plants survive because of heterotrophs breathing out CO2....i just wanted to point that out sorry if i offended ne one it was not intentional...im just testin my self for my Bio exam at the end of the year

[EmeraldKnight]

WHOA hold on here...please no false info...no offence i truly do not mean to be rude but plants us CO2 to make there good...the waste of the metabolic process is O2(oxygen) we breathe because of plants...and plants survive because of heterotrophs breathing out CO2....i just wanted to point that out sorry if i offended ne one it was not intentional...im just testin my self for my Bio exam at the end of the year

lol thank you for that clarification, now would someone like to respond to the topic?

[tkproduce]

WHOA hold on here...please no false info...no offence i truly do not mean to be rude but plants us CO2 to make there good...the waste of the metabolic process is O2(oxygen) we breathe because of plants...and plants survive because of heterotrophs breathing out CO2....i just wanted to point that out sorry if i offended ne one it was not intentional...im just testin my self for my Bio exam at the end of the year

Yes, photosynthesis that occurs in plants is a process of converting carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen using light energy from the sun. However, don't forget that plants also need to respire (convert glucose into energy) as well, which is a process of converting ADP into ATP using glucose and oxygen, releasing carbon dioxide and water as byproducts of the reaction. This isn't FALSE info, I'm just clarifying the misconception in most people that all plants do is take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen and animals do the opposite. In fact plants do both.

[EmeraldKnight]

Maybe we should have a separate debate on the legitimacy of the information presented...

[tkproduce]

Maybe we should have a separate debate on the legitimacy of the information presented...

well, you can't really debate over a FACT, because the conclusion will come way too quickly.

[EmeraldKnight]

Then can we please get back on topic?

[*Kathleen*]

That would be nice.

See I'm mainly for the economy simply because you need money to help the envrionment in the first place. On the other hand, the environment can't help the economy. Also, I remember when I researched this topic that our natural resources aren't running as low as you think they are. If I find an example or fact, I'll get back to you on that.

[EmeraldKnight]

See I'm mainly for the economy simply because you need money to help the envrionment in the first place. On the other hand, the environment can't help the economy. Also, I remember when I researched this topic that our natural resources aren't running as low as you think they are. If I find an example or fact, I'll get back to you on that. 

Well... i just did policy debate last week.. one of our evidence cards said that invasive species brought in by ballast water (the case we ran), costs our government $138 billion at year to clean up, so if that isnt a reason to protect the environment and pass regulations, i dont know what is

[ComradeRed]

Well, when you focus on something, it usually does lead to your goal. Besides, where would they get the money to keep repairing their own environment?

Since this resolution applies universally, it logically also applies to First World nations, who thus have an obligation to help the third world protect their environments.

Just trying something doesn't guarantee that you'll get it, especailly since most ppl in third world countries rely directly on the environment for their basic needs, so you actually cannot fulfill basic needs on the negative.

[Spirited Away]

That would be nice.

See I'm mainly for the economy simply because you need money to help the envrionment in the first place. On the other hand, the environment can't help the economy. Also, I remember when I researched this topic that our natural resources aren't running as low as you think they are. If I find an example or fact, I'll get back to you on that.

Ah, but the environment can help the economy, of course, not as much as the economy can help it.

You wouldn't buy a house if it's built near a polluted water source or settle close to a congested freeway. Why? You wouldn't want to breathe in smelly water and air nor would you want your house to be infested by rats... The house that you would not buy then, results as a loss. The economy is not allocating its resources very efficiently if it produces something, and the output is not being used.

Each year, millions of American enjoy hunting, camping, outdoor recreational activities. You see, the environment IS a business. You get allergies from the environment, you can get sick if you live in a polluted area... You come to doctors and buy drugs to ease your sickness which is caused by the environment...

Even though people may say that water is the utmost concern, I think that air and water are equally important in sustaining our health. Nowdays, our health can stand as a market by itself.

[shawty_redd]

i think that enviroment is more important because with out enviroment there would be no economy right??

[EmeraldKnight]

i think that enviroment is more important because with out enviroment there would be no economy right?? 

But if we dont even have the money to provide for our own people, where are we going to get the money to help the environment?

[shawty_redd]

But if we dont even have the money to provide for our own people, where are we going to get the money to help the environment?

but to make money u need the enviroment...without paper and ink, which come from enviroment, there would be no money in the first place...

[EmeraldKnight]

but to make money u need the enviroment...without paper and ink, which come from enviroment, there would be no money in the first place...

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

[Spirited Away]

I wouldn't say all of our spending would need to go to the environment.

I think so long as we and big businesses are aware and careful of the situation, then we wouldn't need to worry much. If big production plants are willing (pfft.. as if) to cut down their level of production, then both the economy and environment are set...

[EmeraldKnight]

I think so long as we and big businesses are aware and careful of the situation, then we wouldn't need to worry much. If big production plants are willing (pfft.. as if) to cut down their level of production, then both the economy and environment are set...

hm.. you do have a point there.. i was thinking more of the government instituting programs.. but if by some miracle the companies start cutting down and being more environment conscious, things could improve without hurting the economy much, there'd be some inflation, but not too much

The main problem though, is that companies wont be willing to do it, its an idealistic scenario, not a realistic one.. because.. if a few companies do it, but the others do not, the environment will still be hurt and the environmentally concerned companies will also be put at a disadvantage

[Spirited Away]

The main problem though, is that companies wont be willing to do it, its an idealistic scenario, not a realistic one.. because.. if a few companies do it, but the others do not, the environment will still be hurt and the environmentally concerned companies will also be put at a disadvantage

Exactly. Why would you want to worry about the environment when you could be making more money than your competitions!

*Sigh*.

[EmeraldKnight]

Exactly. Why would you want to worry about the environment when you could be making more money than your competitions!

*Sigh*. 

Yeah.. even if the gov were to impose regulations, most likely they'd find some way around that, plus its very unlikely since these big companies are prime contributors to political campaigns... see.. idealistically, there should be a balance between environment and economy, preserving the environment enough yet prospering the economy...

unfortunately, capitalism revolves around being greedy pigs, and thus the environment suffers

cuz if we were to apply regulations, our economy would suffer from inflation and we'd end up exporting from other countries that dont care as much

[Spirited Away]

unfortunately, capitalism revolves around being greedy pigs, and thus the environment suffers

cuz if we were to apply regulations, our economy would suffer from inflation and we'd end up exporting from other countries that dont care as much

It's all up to the tree huggers to make people 'aware'.

Seriously speaking, it wouldn't be so bad though, if we were able to find a new fuel source; something to replace oil and coal.

[EmeraldKnight]

Seriously speaking, it wouldn't be so bad though, if we were able to find a new fuel source; something to replace oil and coal.

There are new fuel sources, wind, water, solar power, biomass, alternate fuel sources exist, they're just not widespread enough yet

[strice]

there is no choosing one or the other, really. if the environment goes down, the economy is screwed since resources are tougher and more expensive, and companies that damage the environment would be very unpopular. on the other hand, if the economy goes down, there'd be no money to finance protection of environment and such.

[EmeraldKnight]

But see, there is choosing one or the other, depending on the situation, you want to focus on the one that's most necessary at the moment

[shawty_redd]

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

[EmeraldKnight]

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

Yes, and because of the war the economy's down, so we need to work on that first, before we start focusing on the environment

[*Kathleen*]

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.

[ComradeRed]

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.

[EmeraldKnight]

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.

Alright then, I favor developing the economy before preserving the environment, because there must be a strong economic base before we start worrying about our natural resources running out

[*Kathleen*]

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?

[ComradeRed]

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.

[EmeraldKnight]

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?

[ComradeRed]

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?

Of course it would, but this resolution is relative.

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.

[EmeraldKnight]

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

[ComradeRed]

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

But in the long-term it helps the economy through superior health and resources.

[EmeraldKnight]

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?

[ComradeRed]

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.

[EmeraldKnight]

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

[ComradeRed]

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.

[EmeraldKnight]

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?

[ComradeRed]

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.

[EmeraldKnight]

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.

But if the government does not regulate the economy, at least to some extent, whats to prevent companies from overcharging the state? such as with the California power crisis?

[Spirited Away]

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...

[EmeraldKnight]

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

[Spirited Away]

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

I'm just researching these stuff.. i rarely understand half of the stuff i say...

sure i studied economics... i forgot most of it.

you're doing a wonderful job for someone who's bsing through

[ComradeRed]

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...

You own PART of the economy.

In a market, the buyer owns his money, and the seller owns the goods he's selling. It's still a private good.

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

[EmeraldKnight]

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

[ComradeRed]

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

Ok going into economic theory... in a market of private goods, how do you determine what to produce? You determine that through prices, i.e. supply and demand. Thus, a market "price" is the maximally efficient allocation of production, and thus generates the MOST production and the MOST consumption, and thus the best economy.

When a government interferes in the supply-demand equilibrium, by putting a price cap or a price floor on something, it cause lost production, because you can no longer maximize producer profits and consumer gain.

There are times hwne the government can intervene in the economy and help. This is known as "market failure", the most common case is of an abusive monopoly that does price gouging itself.

[Spirited Away]

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

[ComradeRed]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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.

[angel-roh]

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.

[EmeraldKnight]

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.

So considering the half a trillion dollar deficit we currently have, you suggest FURTHER spending on the environment and adding to that deficit?

[ComradeRed]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[ComradeRed]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

Markets make up an economy. Economy is a word that describes the transactions of markets, managment of resources... etc, and does not mean markets alone.