Sentences with phrase «arguing against interest»

In his job as an activist at the Center for Popular Democracy, Barkan led a successful effort to get Fed officials thinking more about low - income Americans as they conduct monetary policy, often arguing against interest rate hikes in the face of high underemployment and weak wage growth.

Not exact matches

I have run across Robert Farmer who argues against the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis with implications for not raising interest rates.

Few would argue against the idea that all advisers should act in their clients» best interests.

Of course one could argue that the model was not back tested far enough and needs to be back tested against a larger amount of time but it is interesting none the less.

He argued against ending the Fed's bond buying program and urged the central bank to make a commitment to achieving its inflation target before starting to raise interest rates.

Argue as you will against American self - interests, sure.

It is interesting that anything you don't agree with (and can't argue againsts) Gauis, you dismiss as a «broken record.»

It is interesting that Karl Barth, who argued rather unconvincingly against Christian art, expressed great admiration for this painting.

While the book gives an interesting summary of various authors who have argued that it was the Protestant Reformation that gave rise to atheism, the author fails to note any connection between the rejection (traceable from nominalism) of reason's capacity to know reality, the Protestant Reformation's appeal to faith against reason, intellectual scepticism and current postmodernism.

A Christian, he has been interested in the science and religion debate, arguing against the Intelligent Design school on the one hand and materialism on the other.

Michael Croft, President of the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) will argue at a St James Ethic Centre debate on 4 March 2014 that foreign investment in agricultural land and infrastructure works against Australia's national and best interests unless the regulatory system and current model are changed.

personal preferences, influenced by recent Western cultural values and social ideology, NOT studies of the natural biology and needs of the human infant have argued against babies arousing at night to feed a lot; and, indeed, the «sleep like a baby» or «shush the baby is sleeping» model, while some kind of western ideal is NOT what babies are designed to do nor experience, and it is definitely not in their own biological or emotional or social best interest.

* A proposal to weaken protections against aquatic invaders, like zebra mussels, in the Great Lakes and across the country failed in a procedural vote in the U.S. Senate, despite pressure from shipping industry interests that argued to repeal the regulations.

«Iain Dale says that Parkinson can not be arguing against gay equality because Parkinson is himself gay» Unfortunately Conservative party LGBT people do work against the interests of other LGBT people.

SERAP argues that the public interest in publishing the names of the high - ranking government officials from whom funds were received outweighs any considerations to withhold the information, as there would be no prejudice against those whose names are published as long as the information is appropriately framed and truthful.»

At one point the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, obtained an injunction against the BBC, preventing them from reporting a story they claimed was in the public interest while he argued that the story was sub judice.

De Blasio and Murphy vowed to work together to rally against the GOP's massive federal tax overhaul that calls for the elimination of popular tax deductions — such as state and local property tax costs and student loan interest payments — which they argue will hurt middle - class taxpayers.

You can argue against the strike and you can certainly argue against current public pension arrangements, but it's hard to object to what took place today in London: people cheerfully coming together to defend their interests and make their views plain to government.

Unless you are excessively wealthy you are arguing against your own best interests when you bash Jeremy Corbyn like this.

When I first used to work in Westminster in the late «70s, you've got to remember there were very, very few places where people did interviews... 15 years later, with wall - to - wall 24 - hour news and the constant soundbite world, I think that finding a way to subvert the soundbite world is a duty for all of us and it's quite difficult... As somebody who would never argue against more outlets, one of the consequences we have to cope with is that people are trained up earlier and more efficiently and more boringly to avoid being interesting, avoid getting to the point.

But Rep. Raul Grijalva is also strongly defending his search for ties between fossil - fuel interests and climate research against charges that it's a «witch hunt,» arguing that the thrust of the inquiry is aimed at providing important disclosures.

In such a forum, balancing can play a key role and they argue that the proper method for assessing the new counter-terrorism laws, from a human rights perspective, is to adopt a «balancing approach» according to which the importance of the relevant human right is weighed against the importance of the societal or community interest in deciding whether to take legislative action (or, from the position of a judge, in deciding whether a certain law is valid).

In «Expand Choice, but Keep the Public Interest in Mind,» Nelson Smith argues against Education Savings Accounts.

«She's raising money for Goliath,» Diane Ravitch says of Rhee, arguing that if there really is some monstrous force of special interests — «the blob» — working against children, it isn't the beleaguered unions.

When the lawyer for the state of Illinois tried to argue that the state had an interest in working with «a stable, responsible, independent counterpart that's well - resourced enough that it can partner in the process of not only contract negotiation,» Justice Kennedy broke in and devastatingly finished his thought by saying, «It can partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion, for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes.»

As a follow - up to our most recent post, for those of you interested in reading more about Kane's testimony in the Vergara v. California case, please see the following post written by John Thompson in another blog titled «Does the Gates Foundation's Evidence Argue For or Against Vergara?»

I've argued against authors and publishers investing in embedded audio / video because I think most readers are not interested.

The BoC's decision has been the subject of much debate — recent low interest rates were intended as an economic stimulus coming out of last year's recession, and some economists have been arguing that rates should stay low for the time being as a measure of protection against global market turmoil.

To begin with, it may help for Alice to read «Risk Less and Prosper: Your Guide to Safer Investing,» by Zvi Bodie and Rachelle Taqqu, in which the authors argue for accumulating TIPS in one's portfolio, because TIPS provide inflation protection and hedge against interest rate risk.

Now I have been trying to argue against this by saying that eventually prices will be so high that interest rates on the mortgage alone can't be keept down, but somehow I always fail at convincing them.

In this case, the plaintiff's lead attorney argued that Smith should be personally liable because his actions were negligent and against the best interests of the corporation.

Any realtor who argues against market interest rates, an end to government subsidies for buyers without money or more prudent lending limits is making an argument against their own industry and future.

But even if I'm now arguing in favor instead of against a card, it will still be more interesting than arguing in favor of the Sapphire Preferred, which you've all heard too much about.

Chinese interests — in energy security, economic growth and development, and macroeconomic stability — directly argue against large - scale implementation of CCS in China unless such an implementation can be almost entirely supported by outside funding.

It's interesting to note that visible media figures have latched on to that argument while also arguing against increasing aid to poor countries.

I find that particularly interesting because nuclear is often promoted by the same ideological cohort that typically argues against federal financing and highly centralized policy - making.

No, what I'm seeing is your «Self - interest argues against many choices that science has led us to recognize as wise».

More specifically, when opponents of climate change policies make self - interest based arguments against the adoption of policies such as cost to the United States, there are no follow - up questions asked by the press about whether those who argue against climate change policies on grounds of cost to the United States are denying that the United States has duties or responsibilities to those outside the United States to prevent harm to them.

Wouldn't that be more interesting than getting people — who are quite frankly in denial and in the minority — to argue against scientists about whether the greenhouse gas effect is even true?

So I consistently argue against my own financial interest.»

Jon wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that even if the skeptic narratives are correct, the old narratives I was telling wasn't an argument against climate action.

It's an interesting passage for the son of Knut Angstrom to write — the elder Angstrom had strenuously argued against Arrhenius» ideas.

Powerful liberal groups have been calling for more ambitious limits to emissions, while more conservative interests argue against the drastic measures already required in the Kyoto Protocol.

If you need it spelled out any more clearly, by adopting my current position, I am actually arguing against my vested interest.

If you're interested in seeing what playing the player instead of the ball looks like, check out the alarmist site Only In It For the Gold, where Michael Tobis unleashes endless vicious ad hominem against any skeptics who raise their voice (his most recent was a long diatribe against Freeman Dyson, whom he apparently considers a geriatric buffoon), and opens threads on what names one should call «denialists», regularly bans commenters who argue a point too vociferously, or anyone claiming scientific credentials but arguing against «the consensus».

There's an interesting new article in Science by Damon Matthews and Susan Solomon that argues against the idea that worsening climate change is unavoidable, even if changes wrought by our past emissions can not be reversed.

So, when politicians and victim's advocates claim that defence lawyers have a conflict of interest in arguing against get - tough - on - crime - policies, they've got it all backwards.

And it is singularly unattractive to argue that confidentiality should be recognised by the law in order to protect the interests of a solicitor against whom an adverse finding has been made.

«Furthermore, it might be argued that the generous rate of interest on costs at 4 % over base is designed to provide at least some protection to the payee against such events.»

Answer: Interesting question, as the defense will likely argue that (a) you can not show you were discriminated against because you are a male, and (b) an employee can not claim harassment when his boss hits on his wife.