| Final-Fan said: 1. Well, $100B would be almost as big as 1/3 of the current Canadian federal budget (an increase of 30%+), but fair enough. However, if this was the case, I have to wonder why you said earlier, "I don't see how countries whose GDP's are only a fraction of the US's would pay the same 100 Billion", when now you say you thought that was exactly what the agreement was saying. Please explain that to me.
Additionally, if you thought many countries would be paying $100B/yr. each, why did you say, "Source1 states 'richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries' misleading us to think this is specifically a US-goal." Please explain how that isn't directly contradicting what you are now saying, considering what you chose to put in bold, because to me it seems like these are mutually exclusive statements (I read your older statement as saying you thought only the US was called on to pay $100B/yr.). |
The reason for my surprise (I don't see how...) was because of that legitimate journalistic confusion that stemmed from the grammatical error. Journalistically an auidence has to accept what the article is saying while still critiquing it. It could very well ahve been true despite what I knew about the US GDP, in fact it could have been one of the reasons people were bashing the Agreement for being unreasonable. It turns it, for some critics, it was unreasonable enough in other ways, but that could have logically been another reason while still being unreasonable.
-
Competition is great for innovation. It is halted by oversight and regulations stemming from collective institutions. They can't operate at the same time, we have to switch back and forth(like I said, I feel a "switch" has been long overdue from my interpretation of history[peacetime/domestic focus, etc.]). In other words, there will inevitably be negative side effects during these innovative periods that will be directly related to a lack of focus on things like safety concerns, etc.
That's why it's important we switch back. We need periods of deregulation that will eventually be followed up by regulation once again. But a constant chokehold helps no one just as much as a constant free-for-all will bring about mayhem that you allude to. Globalism(the biggest form of collectivism we can have at the moment), big International governments(US is the biggest), and other internation groups, have had a lot of unchecked power and support in this era. During that time the capacity for individuals to affect society positively has grown immensely but with no political outlet to express its potential. I look to people like Trump and Marie Le Pen(unfortunately gone), who abhor government, to open these floodgates.
Dropping out of this Agreement is a bold move that sets us in that direction(without taking much away imo). I've already heard about State-level politcians like NYC's Bill De Blasio, and wealthy individuals like Michael Bloomberg who are vowing to take on Climate Change repsonsibility, and it hasn't been that long since the agreement was left. It is my strong belief that society has in fact already taken a stronger interest in the subject matter as a direct result of this move regardless of whether people like or dislike it. I think discussions like these will actually become more commonplace as well, albeit different from face-to-face interactions(tend to be more emotional and unforgiving).
