The American economy has traditionally been based on new technology. For the past 100 years, we've ruled the world by being the first to move on planes, cars, conumer appliances, computers, software and the internet. Innovation is what gives us our edge over the stoggey and the underdeveloped. It should come as no surprise that as we enter the new eco-friendly future, its Americans coming forward to lead the revolution.




While much of the hype around the emerging "clean tech" economy has centered on celebrity venture capitalists and entrepreneurs, most of the jobs, says Jones, will be created in less glamorous sectors: weatherizing homes and offices, installing solar panels and retrofitting factories with ener*gy-efficient technologies. "This is not an eco-elite, eco-chic movement for people who can afford to buy hybrid cars and shop at Whole Foods," says Jones. "The green economy to come is going to be a broad-shouldered, mass movement of American labor."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131038

It appears that the weak dollar is going to do far more to increase production and add jobs to our economy in the short term, than the creation of "green jobs":

Detroit export link (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=168593)

It appears that the weak dollar is going to do far more to increase production and add jobs to our economy in the short term, than the creation of "green jobs":

Detroit export link (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=168593)


I would much rather add 10 green jobs than 100 jobs that resulted from of our weak dollar. The green jobs will build strength in our economy for decades and the weak dollar jobs... Well, they will just kind of go away when the dollar swings back up. We need to start thinking about long term strategies in America and not the quick fix. Balancing our trade, getting off of imported energy, building advanced infrastructure (smart grid, renewable energy systems) and making Americans among the world's best educated should be our top priorities. Handing out a few thousand dollars to people so they go out and buy some more China-made products at Wal-Mart is not going to do if for us in the long run. I really hope we get a leader someday that will not give a rat's ass about how his decisions will effect his short-term political popularity. Someone who will get elected and then say, "Well folks, we are in deep %$&^. Here is what we are going to do and the payoff will not be seen until way after I am retired."

The weak dollar won't help sell products that aren't wanted.

People have whined for years that Detroit can't sell cars in Japan because of government regs and so forth. Malarkey. Detroit can't sell cars in Japan because Detroit doesn't make cars that the Japanese would accept. Look at what actually sells in Japan and compare it to what Detroit builds.

Many European vehicles are, likewise, small with small engines and really good fuel economy. Detroit doesn't build that. We can sell a few unique vehicles, like the Jeep. If cheap enough, Detroit could probably sell a few Cobalts but are they even certified for the European market? And it would be downright embarassing to put that kind of fuel economy on the market, it would probably generate a lot of disdain for American products, generally.

The bling of an Escalade aided by a value based on the weak dollar will probably attract the noveau rich of some expanding economies but it will likely be perceived as a wannabe next to a Mercedes.

Texas is right, green jobs will add long-term strength to our economy. A pity that Bush's stimulus package doesn't lead to long-term growth, just a short-tem transfer of funds to the Chinese.

I would much rather add 10 green jobs than 100 jobs that resulted from of our weak dollar.

Fortunately, it is not a case of either / or, our economy is adding both. Weak dollar jobs stabilize the economy, while the economy creates "green collar" jobs, so that our tax dollars can be used for other things.


The green jobs will build strength in our economy for decades and the weak dollar jobs... Well, they will just kind of go away when the dollar swings back up.

No argument there, but you will need a healthy economy, so that "green jobs" can take hold.


We need to start thinking about long term strategies in America and not the quick fix. Balancing our trade, getting off of imported energy, building advanced infrastructure (smart grid, renewable energy systems) and making Americans among the world's best educated should be our top priorities.

True, but it is the Democrats that demogogue the economy every election cycle, promising free health care, free medicare and free education. As for education, our universities AREN'T teaching people to create wealth - they are teach them to use the government to redistribute wealth, which makes the nation poorer overall.


Handing out a few thousand dollars to people so they go out and buy some more China-made products at Wal-Mart is not going to do if for us in the long run.

With the weak dollar, those Chinese goods are no longer cheap, so some production move back to the US. Also, Walmart employs / contracts many people, including the dock workers, truckers, etc., so don't forget how many Americans benefit from Walmart shoppers.


I really hope we get a leader someday that will not give a rat's ass about how his decisions will effect his short-term political popularity. Someone who will get elected and then say, "Well folks, we are in deep %$&^. Here is what we are going to do and the payoff will not be seen until way after I am retired."

We have that today - dubya is persisting in the War on Terror, inspite of its popularity, so as to stablize the middle east and maintain the flow of oil, to which our nation is absolutely dependent. John McCain went against the grain and pushed for the surge, which has gotten Iraq back on track. No need to wish, you only need to vote.

Fortunately, it is not a case of either / or, our economy is adding both. Weak dollar jobs stabilize the economy, while the economy creates "green collar" jobs, so that our tax dollars can be used for other things.



No argument there, but you will need a healthy economy, so that "green jobs" can take hold.



True, but it is the Democrats that demogogue the economy every election cycle, promising free health care, free medicare and free education. As for education, our universities AREN'T teaching people to create wealth - they are teach them to use the government to redistribute wealth, which makes the nation poorer overall.



With the weak dollar, those Chinese goods are no longer cheap, so some production move back to the US. Also, Walmart employs / contracts many people, including the dock workers, truckers, etc., so don't forget how many Americans benefit from Walmart shoppers.



We have that today - dubya is persisting in the War on Terror, inspite of its popularity, so as to stablize the middle east and maintain the flow of oil, to which our nation is absolutely dependent. John McCain went against the grain and pushed for the surge, which has gotten Iraq back on track. No need to wish, you only need to vote.

Well, If there was ever a person that thought the exact opposite of myself on this forum it would be you, hands down! lol. I simply can't understand your logic at all. I carefully consider some of the things you say (other things are down right outrageous to me) and just shake my head. I have heard some of these arguments from strict conservatives before and I know it's basically religious so I understand that changing your mind is impossible, unless God came down and told you I was right. Let me just list a few things:

"while the economy creates "green collar" jobs, so that our tax dollars can be used for other things"

You lost me here. How exactly does the economy create green collar jobs? I'm thinking that from what you said, that we need a strong economy for the green jobs to take hold, that you feel green jobs will not help create a strong economy. I have heard this before from very conservative people. I however feel that getting into the global green market will not only create many green jobs but also strengthen the economy. Green is good business! Many companies agree, just listen to Google talk about how going green is making them money. Anyway, we disagree on that fundamentally.

You then state:

"...the Democrats that demogogue the economy every election cycle, promising free health care, free medicare and free education."

I feel our education should be free and also that it should be the best in the world. I guess we disagree on that fundamentally as well. I feel a country's real competitive advantage comes from it's people. If they are more educated they are more likely to be able to grasp and compete with the new technologies that are being invented and utilized in the world. Japan is a good example of a country with an incredible (and mostly free) education system. I would love to have their education 'problems'. Europe also has many great examples. For me our education problem is number two on my list of most important problems to deal with, right after correcting our energy problem. Education is not an option if you want to compete against countries where education is king. It baffles me sometimes how little priority education gets or how we don't use the advanced technologies we have today to improve it. Kind of like how the world has advanced agriculture technology but many countries don't use it yet. One argument is that we need to keep people uneducated to keep the system working. If that's true the system needs to be changed!

You follow this up with:

"As for education, our universities AREN'T teaching people to create wealth - they are teach them to use the government to redistribute wealth, which makes the nation poorer overall"

From your statement we should reduce the amount of students and therefore reduce the amount of redistributed wealth and thus make our nation richer? That is friggen crazy talk! Absolutely laughable, in my humble opinion.

From your comment about how the weak dollar results in Chinese products no longer being inexpensive also has me wondering. We are talking about $1 a day for the average Chinese worker. A day! The dollar would have to drop a heck of a lot more for Chinese products to not be considered inexpensive. I know we disagree fundamentally about global trade but seriously. No longer inexpensive? No way.

Also, talking about the jobs Wal-Mart creates is very short-sighted. Sure some cash is infused into the system and things might look better for the short term. There are very smart economists coming up with this stuff to help put out fires. However, these are just fire extinguishers. If you don't clean up your house and make the structure less prone to fires (by doing the hard things I mentioned above) then the fires keep coming back.

Your Iraq statements tell me that we also fundamentally disagree on that strategy. The entire mind set of going into the Middle East to 'stabilize' it to me is futile. Endless fighting and guerilla warfare, just like that region has been know for since man has recorded history. I follow the other train of thinking. How about instead of having untold bases around the world ready to secure the remaining oil reserves that we work to eliminate our need for the resource in the first place! I don't want to even get into what the proposed Iraq spending could have bought our country in terms of renewable infrastructure. I will say that the money used in the war could have went directly to US companies (other than military contractors - yes that does feed money to our economy as well) that pay US workers to build long-term renewable infrastructure on our home soil. Much better spending than for tossing million dollar smart bombs all over the Middle East. If we started treating other countries with respect and just pretended that their soil was subject to the same regulations that are enforced in our own country (environmental, labor, resource management, etc) I have the feeling that many of the people we are fighting right now would not be so angry. Some people feel that military action is a good way of doing business. I feel war's useful time has come and gone. It's just too messy these days. People don't have the stomach for killing and the weapons are getting too powerful. War is out of fashion. It's not only a moral disaster but a bad business decision. It's not like you get to keep the spoils of war like in the old days. We now install a few bases and give the entire defeated area back to the people. We spent 1.5 Trillion (some say 3) in Iraq and are only going to get a stupid T-shirt. If you look at the overall big picture or macro economics of the action it's hard to argue that we will now be in a better economic situation. In the old days of war yes, you won land and resources and developed new technology but today the technologies gained are much more specialized (stealth technology and super radar) you get no new land and the costs are out of this world! Just do a quick calculation and see how many years of foreign oil 3 Trillion dollars buys. Decades! Rant over.

Well, If there was ever a person that thought the exact opposite of myself on this forum it would be you, hands down! lol. I simply can't understand your logic at all. I carefully consider some of the things you say (other things are down right outrageous to me) and just shake my head. I have heard some of these arguments from strict conservatives before and I know it's basically religious so I understand that changing your mind is impossible, unless God came down and told you I was right. Let me just list a few things:

"while the economy creates "green collar" jobs, so that our tax dollars can be used for other things"

You lost me here. How exactly does the economy create green collar jobs? I'm thinking that from what you said, that we need a strong economy for the green jobs to take hold, that you feel green jobs will not help create a strong economy. I have heard this before from very conservative people. I however feel that getting into the global green market will not only create many green jobs but also strengthen the economy. Green is good business! Many companies agree, just listen to Google talk about how going green is making them money. Anyway, we disagree on that fundamentally.

Some liberals insist that the government both mandate and fund green collar industries. I say, let venture capital and other private funds sponsor that, as they will better vet the tech for financial feasibility. For VC and other private institutions to lend credit, the economy needs to be more than anemic - otherwise, there isn't credit available and/or their won't be an opportunity to get a return on investment. That is why you need a good economy.


You then state:

"...the Democrats that demogogue the economy every election cycle, promising free health care, free medicare and free education."

I feel our education should be free and also that it should be the best in the world. I guess we disagree on that fundamentally as well. I feel a country's real competitive advantage comes from it's people. If they are more educated they are more likely to be able to grasp and compete with the new technologies that are being invented and utilized in the world. Japan is a good example of a country with an incredible (and mostly free) education system. I would love to have their education 'problems'. Europe also has many great examples. For me our education problem is number two on my list of most important problems to deal with, right after correcting our energy problem. Education is not an option if you want to compete against countries where education is king. It baffles me sometimes how little priority education gets or how we don't use the advanced technologies we have today to improve it. Kind of like how the world has advanced agriculture technology but many countries don't use it yet. One argument is that we need to keep people uneducated to keep the system working. If that's true the system needs to be changed!

You have yet to define what that education is. I believe education should be focused on being a productive contributor to our economy. Universities focus on civil pursuits, which inevitably focus on wealth acquisition and redistribution, and not on wealth creation.


You follow this up with:

"As for education, our universities AREN'T teaching people to create wealth - they are teach them to use the government to redistribute wealth, which makes the nation poorer overall"

From your statement we should reduce the amount of students and therefore reduce the amount of redistributed wealth and thus make our nation richer? That is friggen crazy talk! Absolutely laughable, in my humble opinion.

That is an absurb reading of my statement. We needn't displace students, just teach them how to economically sustain themselves.


From your comment about how the weak dollar results in Chinese products no longer being inexpensive also has me wondering. We are talking about $1 a day for the average Chinese worker. A day! The dollar would have to drop a heck of a lot more for Chinese products to not be considered inexpensive. I know we disagree fundamentally about global trade but seriously. No longer inexpensive? No way.

You are hanging onto old paradigms. Just as in Japan, wages and costs rise as the population develops marketable skills. Manufacturers in China are now outsourcing to Vietnam and other 3rd world nations, because it is cheaper. The rising dollar exacerbates that situation, and now there are many US companies shifting their manufacturing to domestic sources, just read the article that I linked above.


Also, talking about the jobs Wal-Mart creates is very short-sighted. Sure some cash is infused into the system and things might look better for the short term. There are very smart economists coming up with this stuff to help put out fires. However, these are just fire extinguishers. If you don't clean up your house and make the structure less prone to fires (by doing the hard things I mentioned above) then the fires keep coming back.

No question that Walmart is merely a retailer, and not itself a wealth creator. I am not stating otherwise. I am stating that the importation of products does create jobs for dock workers and truckers, so it is not all bad news.


Your Iraq statements tell me that we also fundamentally disagree on that strategy. The entire mind set of going into the Middle East to 'stabilize' it to me is futile. Endless fighting and guerilla warfare, just like that region has been know for since man has recorded history. I follow the other train of thinking. How about instead of having untold bases around the world ready to secure the remaining oil reserves that we work to eliminate our need for the resource in the first place! I don't want to even get into what the proposed Iraq spending could have bought our country in terms of renewable infrastructure. I will say however that spent money used in the war could have went directly to US companies (other than military contractors - yes that does feed money to our economy as well) that pay US workers to build long-term renewable infrastructure on our home soil. Much better spending than for tossing million dollar smart bombs all over the Middle East. If we started treating other countries with respect and just pretended that their soil was subject to the same regulations as that are enforced in our own country (environmental, labor, resource management, etc) I have the feeling that many of the people we are fighting right now would not be so angry. Some people feel that military action is a good way of doing business. I feel war's useful time has come and gone. It's just too messy these days. People don't have the stomach for killing and the weapons are getting too powerful. War is out of fashion. It's not only a moral disaster but a bad business decision. It's not like you get to keep the spoils of war like in the old days. We now install a few bases and give the entire defeated area back to the people. We spent 1.5 Trillion (some say 3) in Iraq and are only going to get a stupid T-shirt. If you look at the overall big picture or macro economics of the action it's hard to argue that we will now be in a better economic situation. In the old days of war yes, you won land and resources and developed new technology but today the technologies gained are much more specialized (stealth technology and super radar) you get no new land and the costs are out of this world! Just do a quick calculation and see how many years of foreign oil 3 Trillion dollars buys. Decades! Rant over.

Since we cannot switch to renewables overnight, and we cannot switch to renewables while our economy is suffering, the US MUST stablize oil producing regions, until we can get out from under our dependency. I am seeing great strides in the auto, maritime, airline and other transportation industries, as well as domestic electricity generation from solar, wind, etc.

Round and round we go. Ending in the same place and going nowhere. I have already established that we disagree on many things fundamentally and that I can no more change your mind than I could change your religion. Additionally, you replied with nothing of substance so I feel this debate has been rendered useless because it has absolutely no focus. Ok, more specialized education. Universities do not focus on wealth creating things like engineering. No, wait. We cannot switch to renewables while our economy is suffering (wait wouldn't investing in new industries that will make us stronger and able to make money in the global market and thus improve our economy the way to go). Fine. Here is where I again say let's agree to disagree.