The only driver stronger than an economic argument to do something is the war argument, the I-don't-want-to-die argument.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
War is evitable if conditions are such that the costs of making war are higher than the benefits.
Definitely, I am not advocating an arms race.
The conservative argument is that the economy is like the weather, that it just operates automatically.
Even though the risks of death are higher driving than flying, many people would rather drive simply because they feel they have more control driving. The facts are that only a few hundred people die a year flying, and 44,000 are killed a year driving.
I'd rather lose an argument than get into a long discussion in order to win it.
What we've proven is that you can protect the environment, use it wisely and grow the economy and that there is no conflict between the two.
Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought.
War can really cause no economic boom, at least not directly, since an increase in wealth never does result from destruction of goods.
No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic.
The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.