Not exact matches
Callahan is, in
large part, making an
economic argument.
There are a number of important
arguments for why Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom: the need to avoid further
economic turbulence in already troubled times; the benefits of being a relatively
large country with far - reaching international influence; and the long history and common values that we share with the Scots.
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?
One of the
arguments for such a
large federal investment in research is that it will lead to new and more effective treatments for diseases — leading to reduced healthcare costs, leading to more disposable income, leading to
economic prosperity and the continued unbridled freedom of American citizens to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
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.
While Hellblade's general quality is its own
argument to be made for immediate purchase (and if you're into character action / adventure games I'd argue it's a sufficient one at that) I think there's a
larger point that can and should be made for its place within the
economic structure of the industry as an unabashedly pro-consumer offering.
The
argument shifts from a rather
large hydrocarbons resource base to whether it will ever be
economic to exploit those resources.
The
economic argument for
larger turbines can be made across all wind resource areas in the US, says Bruce Hamilton, a director in Navigant Consulting's energy practice.
Common to these
arguments is that they have successfully framed the climate change debate so that opponents and proponents of climate policies debate facts about costs, scientific uncertainty, or
economic harms to nations that act while other
large emitters don't act rather the moral problems with these
arguments.
There was I, thinking the WSJ wasn't interested in scientific
argument, and were intent on protecting the short term
economic interests of
large energy corporations at the longer term expense of the environment.
The most bizarre aspect of the
arguments of Climate Skeptics (as well as the more strident pro-nuclear advocates) is their constant insistence that renewable energy technology can never, ever, provide an
economic source of
large - scale power.
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).