Environment vs. Economy Options

[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.