The biggest drags on our economy would be cap-n-trade and socialized medicine. If anyone in congress has any common sense, both of those plans with be thrown on the scrap heap.
Socialized medicine and cap-trade have been wonderful success stories in Europe.
Why does it not surprise me that yet another conservative has a viewpoint limited to media stereotypes of both China and Africa?
China has the fastest aging population on the planet, no health care system to speak of, industrial pollution on a scale that is inconceviable to most Americans, and contains most of the spots in the "most polluted cities" lists due to air quality that would choke you to tears.
I can provide a lot of links to all of this if needed.
This all points to a shrinking, unhealthy population, which is very bad for economic growth.
Africa is, economically and otherwise, about on par with Europe a couple of hundred years ago.
Considering that when the twentieth century began it was on par with Europe several thousand years ago, they are moving fairly quickly up the development scale, media bits not withstanding.
Here is a guy with actual data, and not Fox "news" reports and feel-good judgmentalism:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_roslin...ever_seen.html
Google search for:
china aging population
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Note that no few of these are financial/business press articles
Google search for:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Here is a good one (pdf):
Analysis of Environmental Efficiency in China's Regional Economies: Is China's Development Sustainable?
China is already home to 16 of the planet's 20 most heavily polluted cities -- a noxious byproduct of its double-digit economic growth.
Seven of 10 homes still burn coal and wood for heat, and half of Chinese men smoke -- a toxic combination of indoor pollution that raises dire questions about the fate of this industrial giant's long-term public health.
Over the next quarter-century, 83 million Chinese -- a number equaling nearly a third of the total U.S. population -- will die from lung cancer and respiratory ailments without the reduction of cigarette smoking and indoor fuel-burning, a new study by Harvard's School of Public Health warns.
"In many places in rural China, the roads are good, people now have cellphones and electricity, but residents are still cooking and heating with the same fuel they have used for centuries," said Majid Ezzati, an associate professor of international health and senior author of the study. "And as a result, people are dying."
In an article published this month in the Lancet medical journal, the Harvard team also concludes that programs to reduce smoking and household use of coal and biomass fuels such as wood for cooking and heating could significantly reduce the deaths.
The question, researchers say, is whether the Chinese government has the political willpower to enact sound public health policy.
"This analysis shows that smoking and fuel use, which affects hundreds of millions of people in China, will be a defining feature of future health in that country," said Hsien-Ho Lin, a graduate student in the department of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health and the lead author of the study.
Ezzati said he was working a few years ago in central China when his team noticed the high number of deaths, which residents did not seem to attribute to their household habits.
"People may know when they are in the house and it's very smoky . . . that it's making them cough -- their chest may hurt and their eyes burn. They talk about symptoms and discomfort," he said.
"They know there is something that's not good from their living conditions. But neither in China nor in other parts of the world do these people say: 'This is making me die early.' "
Strangely enough, we have to go begging China for more money and we give tons of money to Africa.
RandomGuy,
We get it -- China is very polluted -- so is India. So what?
I know this is hard for your anti-environementalist mind to get around, but pollution destroys ecnomic growth.
Environmatal laws are good for the economy.
No environmental laws = unhealthy population.
Unhealthy population = unproductive population.
We are a lot healthier than the WWII generation, but I'd argue that we are not as productive (ahem -- Spurstalk).
EDIT> For the record, I'm not anti-environmental -- just pro-human.
... and that is why you fail, padawan.
And yet, for some strange reason, China and India both said no to limiting CO2 emmissions. I wonder why? If, as you say, it would be so great for their economies.
A lot of people who style themselves conservatives like to believe this about themselves.
Environemental laws and their enforcement are generally good for the economy, and produce a more efficient allocation of capital.
What is your basis for saying this?
More feel-good conservativism in a lame attempt to poke a whole in an economic argument.
Countries do things all the time that aren't in their collective best interests.
Pollution control is good for the economy. You claim not to be "anti-environmentalist" but you can't seem to grasp this basic concept.
Your knee-jerk reactions belie your claims that you aren't anti-environmentalist.
:wgaf:
I've gone through this explanation many times on this message board.
Stretch yourself, abandon your preconceived notions, and YOU try to make the case, just as a devil's advocate thing. It is quite possible.
Conservatives know everything haven't you heard?
I didn't "go out on a limb" and make all kinds of crazy prediction.
One thing I am pretty sure of: Obamacare and tax-n-trade won't be signed into law and that will be a huge victory for the American people.
Maybe you can convince us with a "Modern World" comic strip.
Maybe you can prove I'm wrong with smiley and an "lol".
You didn't even try.
Name one way in which a pollution control law might benefit the economy.
Just one.
Cap n trade is such a good buisiness idea, every buisiness decided to implement it on it's own.
on a local level, aesthetically heavy industry can drive away prospective yuppies in a town. THere are many other's but in general more green regulation hurts rather than helps buisiness.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
