who made the best case...and who did not

According to Ziggy “the Sierra Club was downright wrong” well, sorry to my group but I would have to agree.  I think we argued the club’s position extremely well and accurately portrayed the groups ideal put personally I think the club’s position is contradictory-- yes, it is good that the clubs wants to pass legislation for higher environmental standards in the US but in terms of reality  if domestic content rules were  eliminated and more people were buying foreign, fuel efficient cars it would motivate American car companies to manufacture cars that appeal to consumers over the foreign cars (isn’t that how capitalism is supposed to work???).  But the question wasn’t who’s case was the worse...so back to the question...I think the teams with the bests case was the FAM and AAM.  I think there were able to prove not only that economically the situation would be beneficial to most parties involved but that environmentally removing the domestic content law would be most advantageous.  I think the teams made a good argument in saying that in many cases nations that are manufacturing cars (mainly those who have signed the Kyoto Protocol) have higher environmental regulation than the US.  Economically, which clearly is am extremely important issue right now, I think the groups made the best points as well.  Both foreign and American cars would be manufactured cheaper and the cars would be at a better price for the consumers.  Going into our simulation I thought the big argument against the AAM would be concerning American workers but, according to the group there would still be many American jobs (which I don’t really remember why that works out if someone would like to reply and explain it would be appreciated-- is it because only the car parts would be manufactured oversees and Americans would put the cars together?).  It seems to me that removing domestic content rules would make the most sense economically, environmentally, and for consumers.