Ok, three problems, since even the term "punishment" makes it also obvious that EU is not a cooperative looking for the common good of it's citizens, but tool for the German financial elite to have their way regardless of things like democracy.
There's nothing more moral or good business about razor thin margins.
Nope, but they mean that the "free markets" work... anything other than razor thin margins signal that there's a disturbance in the market -- either actors don't have all the information they need, or something is preventing competition -- that allows for profit to emrge. Which is one way to say that good business is all about preventing the free markets from working!
Anyway, they were still doing it in 1940, they were doing it to japanese, the last incident was in 2011, so the habit still exists...
And apparently pighides or pork having nothing to do with getting to heaven is an absurd idea. To a Muslim, that is.
And competition is not, by definition, efficient. It's immense waste of time, effort and resources. What it produces, on the other hand, might sometimes appear to be efficiency, if look only at the winner. If you look at the whole picture, it would take some mind bending acrobatics to believe that having to write the same software for three different operating systems and three different phone platform is in any way efficient use of developers' skills, time and effort.
Many times, these denier sites all quote one study, and in the cacophony confusion arises.
I would like to add that often these sites quote a study that does not say what the site claims it says, usuallly the contrary. So always check out the study, too. If you don't know the lingo, or can follow the science, there's usually some discussion to be found handling the misquoting of the paper.
As there very seldom is "conclusive" studies in anything -- and especially so in a cross-discipline field covering physics, astronomy and biology -- you'd be better off starting with Spencer Wearth's Discovery of Global Warming, me thinks.
- it requres huge investement before nothing happens
- it takes years to construct a power plant
- it's pretty much unflexible regarding any peaks or lows in consumption
- the latest generation concrete housings' carbon foorprint takes a decade to offset
- provided the fuel mining, enrichement and transportation is almost carbon neutral
- the nuclear plants require a lot of sweet water for cooling, 24/7, and the world is running out
Oh, and nobody is willing to foot the bill, including insurance and decomissioning, so techically greenies don't really need to freak the hell out or start screaming, because mostly nuclear power is off the table due to practical issues. Which probably is why I don't know any greenies who do run around in circles. Actually, most of the greenies I know are free-market liberals. Now, *that* doesn't make any sense...
The more the almost immediately adjustable renewables take care of the power production, the less the is room for old technology in the grid, since the whoe baseload issue goes away. And this is starting to hit the luddite utilities in the Europe who refuse to take advantage of new technology...
Beides, while at least telling your subjects what you are negotiating about, would not necessarily require revealinh all your cards, au contraire, public discourse may give you other leverage, or even more opportunities for bargaining.
I don't think there's downside in open trade negotaitions. Not open trade. Or, you know, open, free markets. There are many downsides to secretive, backhanding, misinforming, lying, deceiving martkets, though.
Meanwhile, the genetic researchers have already started serious discussions about the fact that since we now can fix some defects already on the embryo level, should we? If you cull them, then that discussion will be controlled by hapless physicists...