|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 02 2017 05:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:25 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 05:24 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:22 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:07 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It isn't a treaty and it was voluntary. It imposed nothing. making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Can your new government find another planet? I'm not sure how you view human beings, but we are destroying this planet. This accord will not even put the smallest scratch on that path. Ofcourse eventually we will have to find other planets, climate being only one of the reasons to drive that. We are destroying this planet, so we should keep destroying this planet. Got it. Show me evidence that this agreement changes that path, in a meaningful way. Suddenly once the agreement is signed, we no longer have to go to mars, cause human beings become saints who arent motivated by self interest got it. "We can't fix shit by waving a wand, so better not even try babysteps". Got it. Hey that's pretty easy. Nope, I'm saying "oh ok we didn't take a baby step, nbd"
See, others see it as "the dirtiest country in the world isn't even willing to take baby steps". Both of which are valid.
|
On June 02 2017 05:23 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:20 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:07 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. It isn't a treaty and it was voluntary. It imposed nothing. making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Because that is how our nation and others have done in for over 200 years. And when we do decide to pull out of agreements, it impacts us for a decade or more. Welcome to world politics, were no one gives a shit about your local politics or if an unexpected candidate won. They just want you to keep your promises or not deal with you. Ya I can agree with that, but the USA is the #1 economy in the world, people are going to "deal" with the US one way or another. California alone is #6 gdp in the world lol. I'm sure we can do what we want, and we aren't murdering innocents here, we are simply backing out of an ineffectual symbolic gesture. Again, I don't see the point of the outrage.
the fact you dont understand it doesnt meant its not legit.
btw, how long do you think the USA will remain #1 if you pull out of every trade deal, piss off allies and bully the international community about petty bullshit while China does the opposite with the rest of the world?
|
On June 02 2017 05:24 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:22 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:07 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. It isn't a treaty and it was voluntary. It imposed nothing. making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Can your new government find another planet? I'm not sure how you view human beings, but we are destroying this planet. This accord will not even put the smallest scratch on that path. Ofcourse eventually we will have to find other planets, climate being only one of the reasons to drive that. We are destroying this planet, so we should keep destroying this planet. Got it. Show me evidence that this agreement changes that path, in a meaningful way. Suddenly once the agreement is signed, we no longer have to go to mars, cause human beings become saints who arent motivated by self interest got it.
The point is, that agreement is the minimum minimorum to try to deviate from a dangerous path, and your country is not even willing to do that because of short-term profit. This is pure stupidity, short-sightedness and selfishness.
|
On June 02 2017 05:23 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:20 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:07 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. It isn't a treaty and it was voluntary. It imposed nothing. making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Because that is how our nation and others have done in for over 200 years. And when we do decide to pull out of agreements, it impacts us for a decade or more. Welcome to world politics, were no one gives a shit about your local politics or if an unexpected candidate won. They just want you to keep your promises or not deal with you. Ya I can agree with that, but the USA is the #1 economy in the world, people are going to "deal" with the US one way or another. California alone is #6 gdp in the world lol. I'm sure we can do what we want, and we aren't murdering innocents here, we are simply backing out of an ineffectual symbolic gesture. Again, I don't see the point of the outrage.
climate change is a national security threat dude
lmao
|
On June 02 2017 05:26 Tien wrote:
Can anyone that studied this agreement seriously tell me if this is good or bad?
Does this treaty do anything?
it's bad for the treaty to not have a major polluter in it.
the treaty does something; but has very little teeth. mostly it sets up goals and various groups to coordinate on things (standards, technology, goals)
mostly it would mean the US is less involved in the various procedures and other things setup to help deal with climate change.
it's slightly worse for the world, but only very slightly, as regardless of the status of the treaty itself, the republicans in the us would oppose many of the actual efforts to make things better in the US.
it weakens the US geopolitically by a bit.
|
On June 02 2017 05:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:25 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 05:24 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:22 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:07 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It isn't a treaty and it was voluntary. It imposed nothing. making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Can your new government find another planet? I'm not sure how you view human beings, but we are destroying this planet. This accord will not even put the smallest scratch on that path. Ofcourse eventually we will have to find other planets, climate being only one of the reasons to drive that. We are destroying this planet, so we should keep destroying this planet. Got it. Show me evidence that this agreement changes that path, in a meaningful way. Suddenly once the agreement is signed, we no longer have to go to mars, cause human beings become saints who arent motivated by self interest got it. "We can't fix shit by waving a wand, so better not even try babysteps". Got it. Hey that's pretty easy. Nope, I'm saying "oh ok we didn't take a baby step, nbd"
The issue is that there's a danger that this is a long lasting stance from the US on this.
IF this is just for 4 years and your next president gets in on it 4 years after everyone else I'll agree it's not thaaaaat big of a deal aside from the incredibly massive negative PR you guys are getting. But if this sets the US position on this for the next couple presidents after Trump it's pretty damn massive.
|
On June 02 2017 05:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:17 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. I'm still looking up the numbers right now but assuming US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases by a large margin, you don't think it's worth reducing greenhouse production in proportion? You don't see/agree with the future boon of green energy? You're asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: how much are you willing to have Americans pay to prevent the global temperature from increasing by a further 0.17 degrees by the year 2100?
As a world leader, I'd like to think that the welfare of the planet is important to the US. But perhaps that's too idealistic? America should instead keep looking out for #1, even if 191 other countries are agreement to Paris, cause Americans paying more to prevent 0.17 degree change is too negligible of an endeavor?
|
On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure.
Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet).
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
So basically Trump sacrificed his geopolitical capital for his domestic re-election capital right?
|
On June 02 2017 05:30 Tien wrote:
So basically Trump sacrificed his geopolitical capital for his domestic re-election capital right?
On an agreement the majority of the country agreed with, the business community supported and that was projected to help create jobs and court investment.
But he will claim it helped coal miners, who are super important apparently?
|
On June 02 2017 05:29 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:26 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:25 m4ini wrote:On June 02 2017 05:24 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:22 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:17 TheDwf wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Can your new government find another planet? I'm not sure how you view human beings, but we are destroying this planet. This accord will not even put the smallest scratch on that path. Ofcourse eventually we will have to find other planets, climate being only one of the reasons to drive that. We are destroying this planet, so we should keep destroying this planet. Got it. Show me evidence that this agreement changes that path, in a meaningful way. Suddenly once the agreement is signed, we no longer have to go to mars, cause human beings become saints who arent motivated by self interest got it. "We can't fix shit by waving a wand, so better not even try babysteps". Got it. Hey that's pretty easy. Nope, I'm saying "oh ok we didn't take a baby step, nbd" The issue is that there's a danger that this is a long lasting stance from the US on this. IF this is just for 4 years and your next president gets in on it 4 years after everyone else I'll agree it's not thaaaaat big of a deal aside from the incredibly massive negative PR you guys are getting. But if this sets the US position on this for the next couple presidents after Trump it's pretty damn massive.
Trump will be gone in 4 and the next president is going to over correct if a democrat wins and make a new climate deal where the US chips in even more to make up for lost time. Got nothing to worry about, on top of the fact that this deal is just a symbolic gesture.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51485 Posts
He did say he is going to re join just wants to re negotiate. So clearly doesn't think US can get to the 26-28% or there is more behind the agreement Obama had in place which he thinks going to fuck US up. He never said he was leaving for good or anything just said he bailing on the agreement in place now.
|
Imagine how much Trump would rage about the treaty (not to mention obama and most every other leader in the world) if there were actual, binding targets that cant be sugarcoated by already acheived progress (in the case of Germany thanks to deindustrialisation in the former GDR).
ALSO THINK OF THE HOUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THE WEAPONS DEAL WITH SAUDI ARABIA JUST CREATED IN THE STATES.
Can you fucking believe this guy
Trump’s $110 billion Saudi Arabia Weapons Deal Won’t Spawn American Jobs
Fortune
Though he said something about 350 billion. Possibly that makes for alot of jobs but I haven't found anything so quickly, just about the weapons deal.
|
On June 02 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:21 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:15 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 04:57 On_Slaught wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:
"I was elected to serve Pittsburgh not Paris"
That one's sure to cause a lot of screeching.
"Redistribute wealth out of the United States into the Green Climate Fund ... all on top of America's existing foreign aid payments."
Ouch. You're right. I forgot this is a zero sum game and these issues are mutually exclusive. People who liked Obama rhetoric for eight years suddenly forgetting when the other side does it. I think Trump would characterize it as 'sad.' there's a difference between rhetoric, and repeatedly lying to the american people and actively causing great suffering to them and the world. Right. This was rhetoric, and very effective. The other is what liberals try to diminish by lying themselves. all politicians lie some; but the degree nad extent of trump's lies are far different. as to effectiveness? I suppose it does convince his base, so it is politically effective. bad for the world and for our children of course; but if you don't care about the suffering of your children or other people, then sure. Color me shocked that you'd disagree as to what policies would be better for the world and our children. Go convince your fellow citizens of this truth and maybe you'll eventually have the political might to show everybody the accuracy of your policy prescriptions. For now, the man I voted for has done something I think's best for America, America's children, and the World (other countries could due with more rationality on nonbinding agreements to save the planet).
You see the irony of disagreeing with something that literally the whole world already agrees on and then ask us to convince anybody, right? Everybody is already convinced, Trump's voterbase aside. The accuracy has already been established. You can try to invert reality as much as you want but that's a fact.
The US is alone in this, absolutely isolated. The consensus of all nations on this planet on this issue probably is unprecedented.
|
On June 02 2017 05:32 Pandemona wrote:
He did say he is going to re join just wants to re negotiate. So clearly doesn't think US can get to the 26-28% or there is more behind the agreement Obama had in place which he thinks going to fuck US up. He never said he was leaving for good or anything just said he bailing on the agreement in place now.
No one is going to renegotiate with Trump lol
|
On June 02 2017 05:30 Tien wrote:
So basically Trump sacrificed his geopolitical capital for his domestic re-election capital right?
great re-election capital being accumulated with this move
|
On June 02 2017 05:27 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:23 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:20 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:16 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:09 biology]major wrote:On June 02 2017 05:07 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 04:54 NeoIllusions wrote:On June 02 2017 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
Good. Trump is finally getting back to telling the globalists to fuck off. Care to elaborate? On the surface, Paris Accords seems to be about producing less greenhouse gases and supporting green energy. Essentially, do stuff to better the planet. Is there something in the agreements you are adamantly against? Also for further understanding, what's your stance on climate change? I'm not against treaties in general, but I am against treaties that aren't fundamentally fair to the US and I'm not interested in favor of paying higher energy costs for incredibly marginal environmental impacts. It isn't a treaty and it was voluntary. It imposed nothing. making it completely a symbolic gesture. I don't understand the blowback to this one, bunch of people want a reason to be mad I guess Because we told everyone else who signed on to fuck off, don’t need the agreement anymore because a new president is in town. Other countries do not like it when they work hard on agreements, spend political capital and then you walk away because you have a new president. They don’t want to make deals after that because they don’t want to plan around your fickle people. We gave our word and then we backed out. So the next deal everyone will wonder “is this deal good long term, or will some asshole promise to blow it up to win an election?” The business community was planning on this agreement, deals were being made. People were working on plans, all which are up in the air now because Trump decided this thing was bad. What, we had an an election. An unexpected candidate won. How is a country supposed to "keep it's word" when it's government radically can change every 4 years. Because that is how our nation and others have done in for over 200 years. And when we do decide to pull out of agreements, it impacts us for a decade or more. Welcome to world politics, were no one gives a shit about your local politics or if an unexpected candidate won. They just want you to keep your promises or not deal with you. Ya I can agree with that, but the USA is the #1 economy in the world, people are going to "deal" with the US one way or another. California alone is #6 gdp in the world lol. I'm sure we can do what we want, and we aren't murdering innocents here, we are simply backing out of an ineffectual symbolic gesture. Again, I don't see the point of the outrage. the fact you dont understand it doesnt meant its not legit.
This could be used as a response to a lot of biomajor’s posts. Especially on the topic of civics.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 02 2017 05:16 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 04:56 Yurie wrote:On June 02 2017 04:55 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 04:50 CorsairHero wrote:
Well i guess Musk is leaving the advisory council Too bad. Those two walking egos certainly belonged together. But I guess Trump didn't give enough handouts to make it worth his while. At least Musk knows a bit of Science and wants to implement it. If I could pick between two showmen I know which one I would prefer. As far as I'm concerned Musk is a con man masquerading as an innovator to rack up subsidies. The only reason he cares about Paris is for the benefit of his own business. He and Trump are two of a kind. assume this assessment is correct. (i hate him too, but i'll be damned if his cars aren't cool af, and frankly surprised if Tesla isn't the first to get self driving cars mass marketed and produced) would him taking Tesla and spacex to another country be a net gain of this decision? together alone they're worth several billion.
"Made in the USA" is half his shtick. It won't happen just because the government gives him a little less than already excessive generosity.
|
On June 02 2017 05:33 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 05:32 Pandemona wrote:
He did say he is going to re join just wants to re negotiate. So clearly doesn't think US can get to the 26-28% or there is more behind the agreement Obama had in place which he thinks going to fuck US up. He never said he was leaving for good or anything just said he bailing on the agreement in place now. No one is going to renegotiate with Trump lol
NPR was reporting people in the EU are already calling it the G6.
|
One can claim that the treaty doesn't go far enough or one can claim that it requires too great of an economic cost. To argue both is incoherent at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
