SecondWar said:
Kasz216 said:
SecondWar said:
Kasz216 said:
A lot of economists would actually disagree.
Most green iniatives cost jobs, hence stuff like why obama is scraping the smog rules.
|
Thats is one point of view. Others would argue that in order to comply with the new rules, companies must invest in new technology and R&D, thereby creating new jobs/companies/industries. Yes, people will wonder where this money is going to come from, but the deciding factor is the mindset of the business managers. Are they going to re-invest profits or make cut-backs to fund this change?
Then how about this theory. The cost of conforming to the new rules so X amount of $. Part of that is spent hiring new employess to mointor company activities to make sure they arent breaking the rules. Would you look at that, you've just created some new jobs! Its quite possibly this scenario wouldn't happen, but again its a management decision.
|
Except... people who argue that really don't understand economics.
For the first by imposing the regulations all are you doing is shrinking the economy, and forcing companies to invest in R&D to get things back tot he baseline. It's like if you banned full gas engines. There would need to be new R&D to create better hybrid engines for a number of thigns incuding planes. The economy would shrink.
For the second, employees monitoring company activites doesn't spur economic growth. It just adds to costs, which makes the products cost more. Monitors create no real economic value.
Plenty of governments made sure there was 100% state employment by giving jobs to every single person who wanted one even to the point of where some people would spend one day digging a hole, and spend the next day filling it up.
This didn't grow their economies at all.
I mean heck, Obama talked like that... yet suddenly when jobs were an issue he changes his tune.
|
That was just an example of how it could create new jobs. If they are employing more people, those people have money to spend which spurs on the economy.
There's no perfect solution to it all, there's positives and negatives to every method. Governments just go with the majority opinion, which is that of deregulation in the USA. Honestly don't want to go much further into this arguement as I normally just start convincing myself we're all doomed.
|
Not really doomed. I mean global warming won't be the end of the world or anything. Heck for countries like Canada and Russia it'd actually be a bonus.
Though yeah, the world is pretty screwed due to population growth and the emergence of developing countries.
China's economic development alone pretty much makes any global warming strategy a pipe dream.
