Sentences with phrase «economic argument from»

Not exact matches

My argument is we are in a shift from one economic era to another.

The Trump Administration counters that critique by saying that these cuts will be deficit neutral, with individuals enjoying economic growth stemming from these cuts and reinvesting that windfall into the economy, an argument that Mnuchin delivered at a Wednesday press briefing announcing the plan.

Mr. Navarro's writings don't offer economic arguments for exempting Canada from those measures.

She relied on expert evidence from Muse Stancil and the Conference Board to support her arguments in favor of Canada - wide economic benefits.

As my colleague Dylan Matthews points out, it's a bit of a strange argument, because even if a new NAFTA boosted US economic growth, funds for the wall would still come from US taxpayers.

Poloz's main argument for leaving interest rates low is that the obvious damage from an extended period of weak economic growth outweighs the hypothetical risk of a housing bust.

Even with WWI, or even more so with Iraq I, where stronger cases can be for the importance of U.S. economic motivation, it becomes very hard to distinguish the «we must not let Germany control Europe» or «Iraq control the Gulf» - type argument made on geostrategic grounds, from the same argument made on economic grounds.

It is frustrating to see William Chip's well - documented argument of the economic and political evils of illegal immigration rebutted from Scaperlanda's supposedly moral standpoint, when in fact the victims in this scenario are the laborers working without regulations for workplace safety, without employment benefits, and even without police protection (since contact with law enforcement is associated with deportation).

Also, let us not forget Justice O'Connor argument from Casey about liberating women from their baby making bodies so they can help boost the GDP: «The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.»

Apart from the argument that we have a moral duty to help those who wish to come to this country (which you may or may not accept), there is an economic case in favour of immigration in that the economy benefits from the availability of cheap labour, and there is a case against in that growth in population especially in the crowded South - East creates a lot of pressure on infrastructure such as housing, transport, hospitals, and schools (and the growth in population is largely due to immigration).

Secondly, it demands a much greater price from Tory interests and constituencies in its economic arguments.

Moreover, a number of actors have employed arguments relating to the potential economic decadence of an independent Catalonia or its automatic exclusion from the European Union (in contrast with empirical evidence and the Scottish debate).

There is also a strong economic and political argument for parallel negotiations — it opens the way for a smooth transition between UK withdrawal from the EU, and the onset of a new trading relationship between the UK and the EU.

Capitalism, from this first argument against economic growth, is like a bicycle, the economy either grows (moves forward) or it falls over.

The economic argument is debatable and opinions differ, but do you think the large numbers of struggling upstaters enjoy the high taxes, ever increasing fees (example: the cost to have your vehicle inspected DOUBLED from 2010 to 2011 and is now one of the highest in the nation) and endless financial burdens they as lower and middle class people endure while the rich bankers and CEOs downstate laugh at them?

A society based on unsustainable greed and financial «fairy gold» is simply not a good idea, and the fact that the economic arguments behind it are shaky offers an opportunity to move on from this.

«Balls may have been right, but he was trying to win an economic argument for a fiscal stimulus from opposition, and that is hard.

This is a classic argument from economic research on central bank independence.

Employers responded to the government's consultation on changes to skilled labour migration (Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points - Based System) with vigorous arguments for the economic necessity of IntraCompany Transfers (ICTs)-- individuals relocated by their employers from overseas branches to British branches of the same company.

The campaign is not only based on extremely weak arguments but also on the idea that Labour should go into the next election saying «We believe not only that free movement should be possible with the countries with which we have the closest economic ties but also from every where else in the world.

The Tories» domination of the economic argument has been a political triumph (helped by the lack of scrutiny from the mainstream media).

The report draws on government and trade statistics, academic evidence and economic theory to challenge arguments that the health and social benefits of reducing alcohol consumption are likely to come at a cost to the economy, finding: · Any reduction in employment and income resulting from lower spending on alcohol would be offset by spending on other goods · Econometric analysis of US states suggests that a 10 % decrease in alcohol consumption is associated with a 0.4 % increase in per capita income growth · Lower alcohol consumption could also reduce the economic costs of impaired workplace productivity, alcohol - related sickness, unemployment and premature death, which are estimated to cost the UK # 8 - 11 billion a year The analysis comes at a timely moment, with health groups urging the Chancellor to raise alcohol duty in next month's Budget.

Are you making the Keynesian argument that in the case of a severe recession we need a temporary stimulus of extra spending from some source to get economic activity back to its normal level?

When it got to the turn of the Council of Elders, the regional chair spoke, Hon Hackman spoke, I spoke and I spoke on the economy, but you don't talk about the economy by starting with the resource location;... I started by talking about how poorly this economy has been managed that we have gone from GHS9.4 bn debt to GHS110bn debt at the time, and how growth, without oil, was 1.9 bn and had dwindled to about 4 % etc.,... And I said something which I've said in this room: that Ghana is not poor and that the resource base of this country is found in five regions and I mentioned the regions specifically because I was making a strong economic argument.

«It's difficult to separate the two issues, and one of the challenges if we ever get to having an in - out referendum on Europe will be separating the economic benefits of being members of the EU from arguments around how immigration is changing communities.»

As a committed Labour supporter who has been immersed in the political and economic arguments over Britain's place in the European integration project for some forty years — from my role in overseeing JML expand its business beyond Britain to acting as Secretary of Labour Euro - Safeguards Campaign since 1975 — my views have evolved as the European Union has radically changed form.

Engaging stakeholders and society in an issue that takes place miles from land and fathoms underwater can be a daunting task, especially in the face of economic arguments for mining the deep sea for materials used in products that society values, like cell phones and other electronics.

Put simply, contrary to the arguments of many White Democrats (as well as pundits such as Jonathan Chait of New York, Frank Bruni of the New York Times and academic Mark Lilla), focusing on the efforts of Black, Latino, immigrant, and low - income communities for economic, social and political equality (which has often been derisively called «identity politics»), is critical to Democrat success in winning elections as well as in winning support from younger voters who are also concerned about these matters.

Likewise, for conservative politicians and activist - profiteers disproportionately bankrolled by these and other monied interests, the «reform» argument gives them a way to both talk about fixing education and to bash organized labor, all without having to mention an economic status quo that monied interests benefit from and thus do not want changed.

Likewise, for conservative politicians and activist — profiteers disproportionately bankrolled by these and other monied interests, the «reform» argument gives them a way to both talk about fixing education and to bash organized labor, all without having to mention an economic status quo that monied interests benefit from and thus do not want changed.

The social equity arguments for preschool programs have recently been reinforced by compelling economic evidence that suggests that society at large benefits from investing in these programs.

I also believe that more emphasis should be placed on economic arguments for moving away from non-renewable carbon - based fuels because those impacts are more obvious at present than longer - term environmental impacts.

The following quotes come from a press release sent out this morning from the fossil fuel industry - funded «Heartland Institute,» which pretends to offer science - based arguments in support of their «mission... to discover, develop, and promote free - market solutions to social and economic problems.»

Many economic assessments of climate change policies completed to date, especially from opponents of the Waxman - Markey bill (H.R. 2454), make a flawed argument that meeting...

And I started to see signs — new coalitions and fresh arguments — hinting at how, if these various connections were more widely understood, the urgency of the climate crisis could form the basis of a powerful mass movement, one that would weave all these seemingly disparate issues into a coherent narrative about how to protect humanity from the ravages of both a savagely unjust economic system and a destabilized climate system.

Without admitting defeat, Levant quickly realized that he was going to have to find a different way to spin the dirty oil apart from economic arguments which just weren't resonating with people.

Apart from the pro and con arguments re human - caused GW, most of the posts above show a complete lack of understanding of the economic realities involved.

In doing so, the best he can offer from moral philosophy is a reduction of complicated scientific, political, and economic arguments to facile comparisons of «business as usual» to «standing around, watching a child drown».

The argument shifts from a rather large hydrocarbons resource base to whether it will ever be economic to exploit those resources.

I can make the case in the broad argument that you don't get cheap energy from cheap fossil economic policies as something that always mathematically is true, so no Political decision giving special favor to fossil can be justified (see above).

As the interpretation of infinity in economic climate models is essentially a debate about how to deal with the threat of extinction, Mr Weitzman's argument depends heavily on a judgement about the value of life... A lack of reliable data exacerbates the profound methodological and philosophical difficulties faced by climate change economists... The United Nations conference in Paris this December offers a chance to take appropriate steps to protect future generations from this risk... http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/climate-change (MOST COMMENTING ARE NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED)

Here, for example, Angel Gurria, the secretary general of the OECD, created an argument for world leaders to ignore the wants and needs of the people they represent, and to put problems like unemployment, poverty, and economic hardship to one side... To put the political establishment's needs first, and to cement power away from democratic oversight.

Again and again proponents of action on climate change have responded to economic arguments against taking action to reduce the threat of climate change by making counter economic arguments such as climate change policies will produce new jobs or reduce adverse economic impacts that will follow from the failure to reduce the threat of climate change.

What distinguishes ethical issues from economic and scientific arguments about climate change is that ethics is about duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others while economic and scientific arguments are usually understood to be about «value - neutral» «facts» which once established have usually been deployed in arguments against action on climate change based upon self - interest.

Here is a start: skeptics should criticize the IPCC, skeptics should ask for access to data and analytical disclosures, skeptics should not criticize the science with economic arguments, skeptics should not put words into the mouths of those they criticize, skeptics should define some goalposts so that progress can be understood from their point of view, skeptics should use the peer - reviewed literature....

The economic equivalent is the Great Depression and the boom of post WWII; both were radical swings for and against the larger trend of greater trade and prosperity for the USA from founding to today (And if one substitutes public debt to CO2 emissions and switches arguments oddly similar debates arise with the same amount of acrimony on solutions).

The feature articles in these archives span from 2003 to 2011, including case studies on hundreds of Irish sustainable buildings and dozens of investigative pieces on everything from green design and building methods, to the economic arguments for low energy construction.

In addition to their enthusiasm for technology, the ecomodernists are different from many other greens in their forceful rejection of the Malthusian argument that we must limit economic growth, recognizing that environmental policies that require curtailing economic growth are politically impractical in rich countries, and are both impractical and morally unjustifiable in poor countries.

I would encourage you to stop legitimizing the denialist argument that «Reasonable estimates range from economic damage significantly greater than the cost of mitigation...».

The AGs arguments on both issues, first on the distinction between economic and monetary policy and second on the prohibition of monetary financing, lead us to a much more fundamental question: Given the development of the monetary union, the lessons from the banking crisis and the current economic situation in several Member States, can one really maintain the separation between monetary and economic policy — that was artificial from the beginning — and the prohibition of monetary financing (as well as the prohibition of bailouts) in this form?