Hillary Clinton: U.S. Weakened by Debt

[Inkara1]

...and yet, I noticed you haven't addressed anything about China's industry at all. You've only addressed the people's ecological footprint. Am I to guess that my statement of China doing more to mess up the environment is only valid for per-person ecological footprints and not industry or government?

 

[spike]

Maybe you could start with some sort of evidence that supports the claim you made?

 

[chcr]

Well, first of all, it's not really a theory. Most of China is a third world nation at best. The reason they aren't as wasteful is because, having less, they have less to waste. This seems perfectly clear to me. I don't know why Spike thinks living in a large city has any bearing on this whatsoever. I suspect that he simply didn't think it through and was just being argumentative and contradictory, but we won't be surprised when he contradicts that, will we?

Maybe he thinks third world nations don't have large cities????

What definition of third world are you using?



Here's the third world in red:

Third World



Now, if you could start backing up the things you say I wouldn't call them assumptions.

Okay, given your limited understanding perhaps I should have said "like a third world nation." I apologize. I thought it was clearly implied. Evidently not. I don't "assume" they are poorer or have less in the way of posessions and disposable income than Americans or citizens of other fully developed nations. Evidence abounds. Sorry you misunderstood the discussion. I'll try to limit myself to words of one or two syllables from now on.

The original point was and is that of course they make less of an ecological footprint than Americans, they have less to make it with. I'm reasonably sure (although I didn't research it and have no evidence) that as a nation they make less of a "footprint" than the US. I would also suggest, given their current predelictions (sorry, there's wunna them pesky long words again) that they're catching up fast and will pass us quite soon.

For instance, I know that Chinese companies are drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. American companies aren't allowed to because of environmental restricions (oversimplified but basically the case). The Chinese have no such restrictions so, in international waters, they get to go ahead. Who would you rather have drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?

 

[MrBishop]

Link?

Is your source Greenpeace? Are you serious, or trying out a new clown routine for the Sun Circus?

Yeah..oddly enough, Greenpeace keeps track of pollution trends and actually posts about it. Try www.greenpeace.org

The main pain about their web-site is that unless you're a member, you have to work around 'every single word on their free site' being a link. Makes it a pain to read and worst to copy/paste. I have to 'view source' to get the text and copy it here. I forgot to add the link afterwards and closed the site, so I don't have the exact addy. I suppose that I can look it up again.

The point is that countries export their garbage to China (legally or not), and this does include the USA and Canada...and this is recent, not 10+ years ago.

You going to argue against it or just nit-pick the source?

 

[Professur]

what source? Greenpeach isn't a source, it's a political entity, with an agenda and goal ... and every reason to slant, bias, and even fraud data as they please.

Don't you find something wrong with an environmental group that runs one of the dirtiest crude oil burning boats on the water ... instead of something under nice clean sail power? Their boat's been refused three times from ports because of violations.

 

[MrBishop]

Don't you find something wrong with an environmental group that runs one of the dirtiest crude oil burning boats on the water ... instead of something under nice clean sail power? Their boat's been refused three times from ports because of violations.

Source?

You wanted a source for what I posted...you got it. Your turn.

 

[Professur]

For what? That they use a crude burning boat instead of a sail?

I intend to supply no source for anything relating to GP, by simple virtue of the fact that they're beneath notice and not worth the effort. I highly doubt you'd find mention of their refusal simply because they'd never admit it, and unless the violations were found after docking they'd not be documented.

 

[Gonz]

The point is that countries export their garbage to China (legally or not),

A legitimate, and rather lucrative, source of imcome. What's the problem? Are we forcing our dirty Pampers down Chinas throat?

 

[MrBishop]

Prof: So...just a slam against GP, nothing to support it and a minute chance that I'd ever find anything even if I did look because it's likely not documented?

O.K. - it's a side issue anyway.

So...would you like to discuss the economy of China or its Environmental issues, or perhaps stick with the US economy and how it may or may not lose its fiscal influence because of it's current debt?

 

[Professur]

So...just a slam against GP,

Sorry, but GP's barely worth that. Hell, they're not even worth a backspace to correct a typo. Frankly, an enviro conversation including them is about as useful as Manson's views on the Catholic church.

So...would you like to discuss the economy of China or its Environmental issues, or perhaps stick with the US economy and how it may or may not lose its fiscal influence because of it's current debt?

I thought we already were. While I'm no economic's major, nor an expert on China, I do hear a few things ... and I put them forth. I look to others to do the same. Then with all that on the table, I look for conclusions. Instead of drawing conclusions, and then searching for facts, stats, or blogs supporting what I've already decided I believe.

 

[Gonz]

and how it may or may not lose its fiscal influence

 

[MrBishop]

A legitimate, and rather lucrative, source of imcome. What's the problem? Are we forcing our dirty Pampers down Chinas throat?

If it was that lucrative, you'd figure that there'd be a long list of American companies trying to do the same. They aren't because of the emission standards that are related to processing all that garbage. We are exporting our pollution to other countries in order to look good environmentally. That is the point.

The American clout/power comes from two sides:
1) It's Military power - best weapons on earth and the will to use them.
2) It's fiscal power - forcing other nations to toe the line when it comes to import/export or face sanctions (we won't buy from you and we have deep pockets).

If the national debt is affecting the latter, you're losing clout. That China owns most of the american debt means that they can turn around and say "Well...before, we had to take whatever was thrown at us because we couldn't afford to say "No"... now we can say
"No"...keep your own garbage.
"No"...cheap manufacturing from China is a thing of the past...you get to pay prime rates now.
"No, that oil is ours...get your own" and
"No...sanctions can't be used against us by you anymore."

 

[Gonz]

The financing of our debt is a bilateral agreement. If they demand to get their money back, we print new money, lowering the value of their investment, We subsequently quit buying their goods (no longer such a steal), leaving them with large unemployment. Since the US consumer purchases about 20% of the worlds products, that's a massive chunk out of their market.

If we quit trading with such a mass exporter, imbalanced trade on our part, we win since we'll have to produce our own products. Likely, there'll be inflation, but that can be settled in relatively short term.

One World Government is not a good thing. I don't like the debt & wish we'd go back to the Gold Standard & Made in America products but we've jumped aboard the save the planet bandwagon so now we're stuck.

 

[Inkara1]

Maybe you could start with some sort of evidence that supports the claim you made?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/1027824.stm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5416431

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5058

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12179835.htm

For starters.

 

[spike]

Okay, given your limited understanding perhaps I should have said "like a third world nation." I apologize. I thought it was clearly implied. Evidently not. I don't "assume" they are poorer or have less in the way of posessions and disposable income than Americans or citizens of other fully developed nations. Evidence abounds. Sorry you misunderstood the discussion. I'll try to limit myself to words of one or two syllables from now on.

You get pissy when you're wrong. Don't worry about syllables, just words that are true would be fine.

 

[spike]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/1027824.stm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5416431

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5058

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12179835.htm

For starters.

Ok, that's a start but none of the links shows "China's doing a lot more to fuck up the environment than we are" they just show that they fuck up the environment too.

It may be true that China does more but I can't tell from your links. What I do know is the average Chinese citizen does 1/4th as much as the average US citizen.

 

[BB]

Who would you rather have drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?

Ged Clampett?


er..actually a company wholly owned by me ... ??

With a lovely green and friendly looking logo of course! ..aand a massive halfdrunken PR department, naturally.

maybe we could grow carrots on the grass covered roof of our offices?

 

[BB]

If it was that lucrative, you'd figure that there'd be a long list of American companies trying to do the same. They aren't because of the emission standards that are related to processing all that garbage. We are exporting our pollution to other countries in order to look good environmentally. That is the point.

I beleive it can indeed be lucrative.

As Britian finds it's confidence and enterpreneurial feet again after WWII .. we've been doing a bit o' business in that manor!

There have been those accusing the UK of being the 'Dirty man of Europe' for taking and processing other's toxic crap etc.

£££'s.

(at least they didn't say dirty OLD man of Europe! )

 

[chcr]

You get pissy when you're wrong. Don't worry about syllables, just words that are true would be fine.

You're right. I thought there was nothing in this universe denser than neutronium but you and Gonz constantly prove me wrong.

Once again, no comments to the point at all, huh?

You inferred a conclusion regarding individual chinese and their "ecological footprint." I thought it was intentional but I'm starting to wonder if you even realize you did it. In any case, I posted a rebuttal stating why, in my opinion, your conclusion was in error. I wasn't very nice about it because I'm not. Your response was argumentative was more concerned with perceived semantics than with the point at hand. Piss poor way to debate in my view, but then you don't want to debate, you want to bludgeon people with your opinions and subsequent obfuscation. Fine, feel free, you aren't the only (even the only one on this board ) after all. When the arguments start getting circular, I usually stop arguing.

 

[spike]

You're right. I thought there was nothing in this universe denser than neutronium but you and Gonz constantly prove me wrong.

Yeah, pissy and insulting when you're wrong.

You know what's a piss poor way to debate? Throwing about insults, assumptions, opnions, and emoticons instead of providing some evidence to back up what you say when asked. I guess that must be all you have.