The Instigator
TheNextDylan
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Would having a "green" infrastructure help America compete with the Chinese economy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,529 times Debate No: 1712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (10)

 

TheNextDylan

Pro

The country of China is becoming far too powerful, and the fact that it is suppressing democracy is troubling. Human rights and environmental laws are unheard of. It is time for America to bring manufacturing back and work with environmentally minded companies at home and abroad to take on a country that stands in the way of human progress. America is not in the best shape and is far from perfect when dealing with environmental issues, but I am optomistic that if we start thinking green, things will take a turn for the better and we can compete with China. Lower production costs due to alternative energies and other environmental advances will lead to lower prices without the use of slave or low wage labor. Plus it is a must that America must take a stand to not only reduce carbon emissions but also protect natural resources and restore human rights by putting economic and diplomatic pressues on un-democratic countries. Soon there may be wars fought over resources, and we must change course so that this does not happen. We must do all in our power to get out this economic slide and help this planet; by going green we will compete in the world market, benefit the planet and hopefully encourage the formation of human rights standards where there currently are none. It is time for a new direction.
DucoNihilum

Con

You bring up an interesting proposition, but I feel that you are highly misguided in a few regards.

You make the claims that

The PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is currently doing better than the United States, or at least we need to 'compete' with them

The PRC has little to no concern for "green" technology

The United States should move to green technology to compete with the PRC to properly compete with the PRC.

Green technology will lower production costs.

This is achievable while still paying the workers 'well'

Humans must lower carbon emissions

Wars will soon be fought over resources

"By going green we will compete in the world market"

I will refute your incorrect points in this order.

The PRC is currently going though a new industrial phase, the transition from 'non industrialized' to 'industrialized'. All modern industrialized countries have gone though this phase- the PRC, thusly, is seeing rapid growth. However- they are still far behind countries like the United States. The US has a average GDP per capita of around 40,000. If I remember correctly, the PRC has a average GDP per capita of around 8000..... Clearly, at least at this time, we are doing better than the PRC.

You are correct in the fact that the PRC, a government controlled socialistic / communist nation has little concern for the environment, or for green energy. But how can this be? Is the government not supposed to be our protector, our savior from the capitalists? Should the government not protect the environment at all costs, protect it from the capitalists? Well- oddly enough, this tends not to be the case. When government steps in on green programs, or to 'protect the environment' things often turn out badly. While there may be some preservations of the environment, the laws are often inefficient. The free market could easily control these better- after all, if you owned land that a corporation was polluting you would put a stop to it. Government control to push green technology isn't a good idea either, but I will come back to this later.

You fallaciously claim that production costs will be /lowered/ under 'green' technology. If this is true, why does the government need to step in to implement this green technology? If this were so drastically efficient, wouldn't everybody be going into the "green" trend- rather than just a few? Businesses have a strong profit motive- if something is cheaper they will go for it, especially if it lowers production costs. Green technology is clearly not nearly efficient enough now for the free market to really grab ahold of this- so if anything it will raise production costs. The PRC is so successful because they are able to sell things for dirt cheap, generally things of little value. To compete with a cheap market like this would mean we would have to become much more efficient, green technology will not do this. People, like businesses under the free market are driven by money. While a very few amount of people may be driven toward green technology ahead of costs, the vast majority of this nation puts costs above all else. Workers are generally paid what they are worth, minus government intervention. There are no such thing as 'slave wages', the terms are contradictory. Overpaying workers does nothing but create a surplus of desired workers- and if mandated by the government, can hurt the poor. Artificially high wages give businesses incentive to hire less employees, or to make up for the costs in some ways- often by refusing to hire another person, or by firing or laying off others. Someone that may have been able to have a job at a cheaper wage is now stuck with no job. A smaller wage is always better than no wage at all.

Us lowering our carbon emissions doesn't have much to do with adopting green technology to compete with the PRC. Please draw a correlation here.

I see no evidence that wars will be fought over resources in the way you describe.

I contend, by what I have written so far, that going green though government mandates will not only not help us with competition in the global market, but significantly weaken us.
Debate Round No. 1
TheNextDylan

Pro

I feel that it is the politicians and the people who disregard the environment who are the ones that are misguiding America.

China (or the PRC) is currently going through an industrial change, but with the inclusion of clean technologies this industrial change does not have to be polluting. Right now China is the world's second biggest greenhouse gas emitter, right behind America. China may have a successful economy but its resources are shot with growing demand. We cannot go down this same road and expect to compete in a world market. I was fortunate enough to interview former Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, who is widely credited with creating the economic surplus during the Clinton years, says that America should have become energy independent thirty years ago. Green energy is apparently "efficient enough" that the former White House Budget Director endorses its use. Now that we are where we are, and I think that we can both agree that the past is over, we must set an example and have an environmentally friendly infrastructure. It is time that we open manufacturing plants here at home and put Americans back to work, as well as trade with allies who are taking steps to become sustainable. We must act quickly: the ball will not be in our court for very long.

Leon Panetta also told me that the environmental movement is about preserving life on earth, and if the human race does not figure out how to solve environmental problems than it will cause its own demise. He said bluntly that we would all die. No, that is not a threat, it is a powerful warning. This is why it is so important to create a green infrastructure within the next twenty years if possible. The technology is readily available, the question is will accept the challenge of restoring ecosystems and reducing carbon emissions or face certain destruction?

Also, the GDP is in such good shape because Americans are buying tons of cheap products from guess where? China. Because the GDP only which monitors investment and consumption, companies that export jobs to countries with few or no labor laws are going to be rewarded and will compete better in the global market. However, a system like this does not encourage democracy but only the well being of the elite. In other words, people invest in a successful company, not necessarily because the company believes in human rights or democracy, but because the company stands to profit. As long as the American companies employee low paid workers overseas and by doing so remain profitable, investors will keep investing in them, no matter how many American jobs are lost. Let's not resort to communism, but it is a flawed system that needs to be fixed.

You argue that overpaying workers does nothing but create a surplus of desired workers. I would argue that underpaying workers creates a surplus of desirable workers, at least workers who are desirable to the bottom line. Look at how many illegal immigrants are crossing our borders for work. Companies desire these workers because they can pay them less and do not need to pay them benefits. Therefore, they are in demand. Look back in American history. When America had slaves, a pathetic chapter in American history, there was a surplus of "desired workers," as you call them. They were underpaid and the world got cheap tobacco and cotton out of the deal. When slavery was outlawed in America the surplus of desired workers rested overseas in countries that had few or no labor laws. In the quest to find desirable workers many American corporations exported jobs overseas. We now have a surplus of people looking for work, but the corporations got what they desired.

You are quoted as saying that "a low wage is better than no wage at all." You have obviously not worked a minimum wage job. I had worked a job for six months where I worked fifteen hour days only to receive six hours worth of pay. I had to survive off of $700 a month. I know how degrading it is, as a former employee of this company, to not be respected or recognized for your contributions to a business. My opinions were often disregarded as nonsense, and I got taken advantage of by thieves with "good intentions," who were going to pay me in the future. I pity those in China, however, even though they have jobs. In countries like China, the fact that they have a job does not mean that their water and air are getting any cleaner, and it does not mean that they have free speech and will be treated with dignity or respect. If we in America believe that all men (and women) are created equal, than why should those in other countries be born into this kind of system? We need to set an example and show to the world that a country that has democratic principles, fair labor laws, and sustainable environmental standards can succeed in the global market place. The connection must be made between human rights and environmentalism, or else low income people (eighty percent of the world's people) would not benefit from the green movement: only the elite, who would be able to afford green products, would. We must make absolutely certain that the green movement encompasses everybody. The gap between rich and poor can be closed with the creation of a green infrastructure.

Creating a green infrastructure in this country will create millions of new jobs, not only in the high tech industry but hopefully in low income areas, where people are waiting for manufacturing jobs to hit close to home. If manufacturing jobs can be restored and America's natural resources are replenished than the American economy will boom. If we monitor resources, because they are not finite as many people believe, than we will have an endless supply of resources and at the same time will not be damaging the planet nearly as much as we are now.

Many people are not "jumping onto" the green movement because America does not have a true Free Market System. Biofuel made from cocoa butter is now at $1.16 a gallon, as opposed to gasoline which is about $3.50 a gallon, depending on where you are. Brazil has switched to using sugar ethanol to power its automobiles, and Brazilian companies are "investing $9 billion in dozens of new sugar mills to boost ethanol production while aiming to double exports by 2010. The eventual goal is to spread new ethanol industries in countries from Japan to Nigeria," USA Today (3/28/2006) reports. Leon Panetta wishes that America should become energy independent and use alternative sources of energy so that we are not involved in wars for resources. I am paraphrasing. Any smart investor would leap on the opportunity to invest in a cheaper, futuristic fuel source, especially with oil prices at an all time high. People would flock to fill their tanks with cheaper gas. But this is not happening. Why not?

The reason that green products have not hit the market place is because the current administration and lobbyists are standing in the way of eco progress. President George W. Bush, if you recall, did not sign the Kyoto Protocol which called for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, especially among first world nations. Lobbyists in the oil, agricultural and energy industries influence policy. The "Free Market" that you speak of would be great… if it allowed for competition. Instead, a few companies call the shots. For example, the Bush Administration's Climate Expert, who was found altering climate reports, went to work for Exxon Mobile the day after he resigned his previous job.

It is true that the initial costs of changing an infrastructure are high, but we must remember how much the first computer cost. It was millions of dollars and nobody could afford it. Now it can fit on one's desk.

To be continued in the next round...
DucoNihilum

Con

"this industrial change does not have to be polluting"

And if they were to secure private property rights there would be far less pollution. This change can not occur with 'green' technology- green technology is for countries rich enough to afford green technology, not countries just moving into industrialization.

"Right now China is the world's second biggest greenhouse gas emitter, right behind America."

Well, greenhouse gases aren't necessarily pollution. There's plenty of debate about whether or not humans are causing global warming though CO2- so you can not always assume that greenhouse gases are pollution.

"says that America should have become energy independent thirty years ago."

That's his own opinion, not an argument.

"Green energy is apparently "efficient enough" that the former White House Budget Director endorses its use."

That doesn't mean it's efficient- that just means someone endorsed it. Politicians have plenty of reasons to 'endorse' programs. Green technology is more popular right now among the left wing, and it makes you look better- inefficiencies aside.

"we must set an example and have an environmentally friendly infrastructure. "

We aren't exactly environmentally unfriendly right now. We have gone above and beyond becoming environmentally friendly.

"It is time that we open manufacturing plants here at home and put Americans back to work"

Well- this is a whole new debate topic, but that is caused by the socialistic controls that give businesses incentive to move elsewhere.

"He said bluntly that we would all die"

I would like to call that 'alarmist'.

You have yet to provide any proof, or even reason to believe we will "all die" if we do not move green.

"The technology is readily available, the question is will accept the challenge of restoring ecosystems and reducing carbon emissions or face certain destruction?"

This debate is not on that issue, this debate is on whether or not green technology will help us compete with the PRC. The technology is available, but if we were to be forced to move 'green', then our economy would take a huge hit- things would be more expensive, so we would be far LESS competitive to the PRC.

"Also, the GDP is in such good shape because Americans are buying tons of cheap products from guess where? China."

That's a gross over simplification.

"However, a system like this does not encourage democracy but only the well being of the elite."

Democracy is not necessarily the best system.

". In other words, people invest in a successful company, not necessarily because the company believes in human rights or democracy, but because the company stands to profit.

The best way for a company to profit would be though selling their products- making the consumers happy. When companies outsource, they tend to pay them less than what you would see here, but above average what you would see in those countries- above the market price.

". In other words, people invest in a successful company, not necessarily because the company believes in human rights or democracy, but because the company stands to profit."

The socialistic control is what is causing the problem in the first place.

"
You argue that overpaying workers does nothing... these workers because they can pay them less and do not need to pay them benefits."

Why would people be rushing to go to a job that is /less/ valuable? Anyways- they will work for less because the current minimum wage laws put the required minimum wage ABOVE market price! Remember that nobody is forced to work for anyone. They choose who to work for. You're trying to argue against the very laws of supply and demand. Would you rather get 10 dollars an hour, or 4 dollars an hour working at mcdonalds? Obviously 10- you desire a higher income- but what if you're only worth 4 dollars an hour to them? The government might come in and set the wage to be 10 dollars an hour. More people would want to go to that job. In fact, more people would want the job above market price than directly on market price.... thus creating a surplus.

"When America had slaves, a pathetic chapter in American history, there was a surplus of "desired workers," as you call them. They were underpaid and the world got cheap tobacco and cotton out of the deal."

You can't even compare the two. Slavery doesn't deal with the free market at all. It's, well, slavery.

"When slavery was outlawed in America the surplus of desired workers rested overseas in countries that had few or no labor laws."

Um- what? We had 'few or no labor laws' at that time, and we were actually doing pretty damn well.

"We now have a surplus of people looking for work"

Unemployment has remained relatively steady.

"You have obviously not worked a minimum wage job"

I'm ...I can choose to leave it. Both choices have positive and negative consequences.

"You have obviously not worked a minimum wage job. ... to a business."

Would you have been better off had you had to survive off 0 dollars a month?

"I got taken advantage of by thieves with "good intentions,""

Thieves imply thievery. Theft is /taking/ something that doesn't belong to you. You made a mutually beneficial exchange, or neither of you would have done it. They got your labor, you got your 700 dollars. Nobody pointed a gun at your head and forced you to work for that company.

"If we in America believe that all men (and women) are created equal, than why should those in other countries be born into this kind of system?"

Because they're tyrants who don't believe in that.

"We need to set an example ...market place."

But any of those things you listed would pump up prices, causing us to be LESS COMPETITIVE with the PRC!

"The .... The gap between rich and poor can be closed with the creation of a green infrastructure."

Closing the gap between the rich and poor is NOT desirable in a free nation- perhaps in the PRC, but not a free nation.

"Creating a green infrastructure in this country will create millions of new jobs"

I agree that the US does not have a totally free market. That does not mean the government should provide us with green technology. We have a free enough market for people to invest in green technology if it is worth while- that is not happening right now.

"The reason that green products have not hit the market place is because the current administration and lobbyists are standing in the way of eco progress."

You can still buy green products. Bush is not denying any special permits to green technologies, he just refuses to subsidize them.

"Preside... nations."

Yes- he's, oddly enough, not always incorrect.

"The "Free Market" that you speak of would be great… if it allowed for competition. "

That's EXACTLY what the free market is- something that allows competition (to simplify it greatly)

"Instead, a few companies call the shots."

Why though? Because of COMPETITION! If they stopped providing consumers with exactly what they wanted they would FAIL fast!

"It is true that the initial costs of changing an infrastructure are high, but we must remember how much the first computer cost. It was millions of dollars and nobody could afford it. Now it can fit on one's desk."

Then we can wait and see if that happens with green technology.

Computers did not require any government intervention to become popular- they were just so great they became so. Let's see if that happens with green technology. If it does, though the free market, I will be more than happy to accept green technology- but at this time, government mandated green policy would cause us more harm economically than good, especially in relation to competition with China.

(Sorry, I had to truncate some of yoru responses)
Debate Round No. 2
TheNextDylan

Pro

Also, government subsidies are given to big agriculture and oil industries to keep retail costs low. The consumer may not see the cost on the price tag, but it comes in the form of taxes and depleted resources. Going green is an investment, and in the long run will more than pay for itself. The operating costs of buildings, for example, will fall if they become environmentally sound because they will need less maintenance. The true cost of a building rests in how it is maintained, not by the cost of its initial construction. Low priced biofuels will make delivering goods much less expensive and these fuels will not release harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There will be lower electricity bills to pay: in many cases people who installed solar panels get money back from the energy companies. Businesses will benefit greatly with lower long term costs.

If you own land that a company is polluting on you can put a stop to it? Especially in China, where rivers are being polluted and workers who live on its shore cannot even talk to the press about the conditions, as proven on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. This is further proof that this broken version of Free Market does not bring democracy, but can, if placed in the wrong hands, can assist tyranny and oppressing. Though this is not the goal of the "Free Market," it is definitely an unwanted side effect.

As for American environmental standards, what if the source of the pollution is twenty miles up stream, which is on land a person does not own? I know that you mean well, but it seems like the corporations have resources in place to prevent lawsuits from taking place. For thirty years General Electric dumped millions of pounds of cancer causing PCB's into the Hudson River and nothing was done until the EPA stepped in. The EPA was hardly perfect, however, as GE was allowed to back out of the deal after removing only ten percent of the waste. There have been environmental lawyers who take cases concerning the environment, but they are fighting an uphill battle against corporate interests. If the pollution is affecting people's health or well being than it should be up to the government to take action. When life itself is at stake somebody needs to step in and make sure that controls are in place, especially with climate change. When titles the act of leveling forests the "Healthy Forest Act" and calls the act of polluting the sky the "Clear Skies Initiative," then we might have to worry about government involvement when it comes to protecting the environment.

Also, if you think that going green will weaken us, think again. According to the Christian Science Monitor, a platoon of (11) retired US generals and admirals warned that global warming "presents significant national security challenges to the United States." Their report, which was titled National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, predicts that climate change, "will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states.... The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of terrorism."

A secret Pentagon report that was leaked by The Observer newspaper in Britain "predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism," according to the few experts privy to its contents.

The CIA has warned in an official report that Global Warming is a greater threat to the world than is terrorism. Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson agrees, stating that, "current preoccupation is with terrorism, but in the long term climate change will outweigh terrorism as an issue for the international community." Rep. Edward J. Markey (D) of Massachusetts, chairman of the newly formed House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, has been quoted as saying that, "Global Warming's impacts on natural resources and climate systems may create the fiercest battle our world has ever seen. If we don't cut pollution and head off severe global warming at the pass, we could see extreme geopolitical strain over decreased clean water, environmental refugees, and other impacts."

In other words, if we do not act to curve global warming and preserve the environment, than our nation will not be secure. Going green will not only benefit the economy, it will hopefully benefit human rights and it will make the world more secure. The long term economic benefits of going green outweigh the short term costs, and the planet and the life that has the holy privilege of living on it will be better off. America has been challenged before, and now we face our greatest challenge. We must fight for our very survival, so let's role down our sleeves, create new innovations and work together to create a cleaner, more prosperous world.
DucoNihilum

Con

It's kind of odd that you bring this stuff up, because the market seems dubious to it. If it were really to cost a lot less, the free market would require businesses to start investing in it. That's not happening right now. As far as I know, government subsidies are not given to oil to keep it low, rather taxes are added to keep it high. I know ethanol and other alternative fuels are heavily subsidized.

Yes- you can put a stop to it though the court of law. I find it incredibly ironic and fallacious of you to bring up the PRC. I have no idea how you could possibly think, even for a second, that the PRC, the PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, run by the COMMUNIST PARTY is an example of the "Free Market".

If you don't own part of the river, you have no say in it. IF you do own part of the river, you have a say in it. Simple as that.

Economically, going green will weaken us- no mater what some alarmist generals think. Human contribution to global warming, if it exists at all, is so minimum that if we were do to anything it would have no effect on the environment at all, especially for the high prices. Although that is not what this argument is about, this argument is not about whether we will all be saved- this is about whether or not we can compete with the PRC. Going green will, by your own admission, cost a lot of money- to the point of being impractical at least at first. To compete with a country like the PRC, we would have to cut costs DOWN, not raise them into infinity.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
First, China is no longer a "socialist" system as it still calls itself. In fact, I would say that many western nations are even more socialist than China nowadays, as China has no social security programs, no universal health care, and no free education. That is extreme capitalism, not socialism. If you still remember Coolidge's famous quote "the business of America is business," I think it would be perfectly suitable to apply that phrase to today's Chinese society. If you have the opportunity, I highly recommend taking a break and travelling to these emerging markets around the globe. Four high growth and high potential nations that have recently seen historically unparalleled transformations include: Brazil, Russia, India, and China (known as the BRIC nations). In fact, their growth is so fast that, according to the latest Goldman Sachs Economic Research Division, by 2025, China's national income will parallel that of the US (20,000 billion USD), and by 2050, China's national income will easily reach 70,000 billion USD, surpassing the US economy by over 30,000 billion USD by then. At the present moment, fears about China "surpassing" the United States are not valid and realistic. At the present moment, China is a still a poor nation in terms of its GDP per capita. However, emerging markets like China and India are closing this wealth gap at a very rapid pace (China's overall economic growth of 2007 is 11.4%, the fastest in the world). In the next 50 years, it will be very likely that there is a great possibility of China surpassing the United States. However, there's not need to panic at the rise of a new great power. After all, think about how many billions of people's lives are going to be drastically improved over the next 50 years as these nations like China and India grow rich and strong. The world will also be a safer place with more responsible great powers to cooperatively work with the US.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
These fears of the PRC overtaking the US are laughable at best. Right now, they're doing far worse than we are- while they are improving and growing this growth is not infinite. They said the same things about Japan and Taiwan- none of which are in public light any longer.

If you believe socialistic systems will magically bring poor people out of poverty you're sadly mistaken. Those who lived in the USSR were not prime examples of the rich and prosperous- they were starving, dying. Capitalist systems will bring people from poverty to good standing.

There are few poor people in the US, while there are people poor compared to the richest of the rich, that is nothing but greed of the poorer. The poor are getting more and more well off as time passes, especially in the US- in spite of its restrictions on capitalism. If you think paying everybody a minimum wage will 'end world poverty' you need to retake economics 101.
Posted by TheNextDylan 9 years ago
TheNextDylan
Also, I have a question. If there is a totally free market and you can do business with whomever you want, would you have worked with Saddam Hussein, or would his human rights atrocities have guided your decision not to do business with him?
Posted by TheNextDylan 9 years ago
TheNextDylan
Yes, there are people from all over the world at Wall Street, but how does 80% of the world's population, the part that lives in poverty, benefit from this? Big corporations such as Halliburton, win big, especially during a time of war, while thousands of others suffer at their expense.

Global boundies have been fading away, you say. That may be true, but for what reason? My argument is that it is has been fading away in order to find cheap labor and buy products from countries with lax environmental standards and labor laws. Why do you think most of the clothing sold in this country comes from Nicaragua, China using sweat shop labor. You wake up, and don't always follow the things you are told.

President Lincoln did not believe that ending slavery would be bad for the economy, so why can't we put an end to low wages across the globe? It is time to end world poverty.

The average CEO in the U.S. now makes 430 times what the average worker makes. That's up more than 10-fold since 1980. Many Americans are losing their jobs to outsourcing while the CEO's go overseas and rake in the cash. I am sorry, but you have little grasp on the real world.
Posted by TheNextDylan 9 years ago
TheNextDylan
China, not U.S., to be new driver of world's economy and innovation

http://www.enn.com...
Source: Georgia Institute of Technology Research News
Posted by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
Your comments are at best laughable and uninformed, as a result of lack of knowledge and indepth understanding. I will not waste my energy answering why being a "sales representative" in the world doesn't equate to being a master of modern capitalism (in fact 95% of financial services personals interviewed by the Wall Street Journal reported that they had never learned elementary economics theories, and there's pretty good chance that that statistic includes a person like you, who would resort to such a shaky example to prove your competence, pity). C'mon, have you ever read the Wealth of Nations and the Critique of the Capitalist System in Das Kapital from cover to cover?

As for your use of the "US Constitution" and other lofty political ideals, I only have one thing to respond: Capitalism is not a human entity. It does not recognize national boundaries, political ideals, or lofty philosophies. Maybe come down and work with a Wall Street firm some day, and you'd quickly realize that all the main exec. officers, expats, and major stock holders of your corporation are not only citizens of the USA, but also citizens and residents of a myriad of other countries around the globe. The dirctor of GEM Fixed Income and Currencies at the HSBC hq in nyc, for instance, holds citizenships of 6 different nations around the globe (he visited more than 50 nations within 7 years of his job). Clearly, in this globalized world, traditional political boundaries have been slowly fading away amid the forces of global capitalism.

Sorry, but if you are really an informed economist, you would know that, as a sales person, you never "make capital." You make "profit," and capital only occupies a small fraction of the profit you make, depending on how much you'd like to save and re-invest that capital later on. As a capitalist, all you can do with capital is to INCREASE the "circulation of capital," hence the term "circulating capital" as defined by Adam Smith. Start learning, kid.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
If global warming is a serious threat- it's not.
Posted by TheNextDylan 9 years ago
TheNextDylan
That's why there are government regulations. If you find lead in your toys, then you want to stop that practice. If you find no more ice caps, you may want to take action to reduce carbon emissions.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
The Libertarian founders of the USC also support Life, Liberty, and Property- rights which are VIOLATED when the government comes in and institutes green technology.
Posted by TheNextDylan 9 years ago
TheNextDylan
Misunderstanding of capitalism? I was a sales representative, my job was to make capital for a buisness. Also, the U.S. Cosntitutions speaks of unalienable rights: these are human rights, the rights to free speech, the right to religion. We have also created international law based on the rights of human beings. My views about creating a green economy are hardly radically when they are not only shared, but praised by the former vice president, the former energy secretary, and the former budget manager of the UNITED STATES.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by BrokenDoors 9 years ago
BrokenDoors
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dlw7505 9 years ago
dlw7505
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TheNextDylan 9 years ago
TheNextDylan
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
TheNextDylanDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30