Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
Look, it's hard to change constitution, but even harder to understand and change entire web of precedence, despite people in Croatia changing the constitution to define marriage as men and a woman, people distrusting the government means that even if you get a better system, they don't profit from it, because they don't trust the court to go.
</poi>

Okay, but they don't distrust it right now, when something that they deem as their individual right is not within the Constitution, and if you actively annihilated and disregarded from society in a way that doesn't allow them to access the good of life that you suppose. Now let's deal with specific instances. One they say you have better protection of rights. And I want to to ask a few things. Well, why likely that the society that they talk about will disregard... it hurts people. I am not sure you want to write the privacy i am not sure... wait what... says there are certain rights that she Behold, no matter if society believes in them, I think, for the ones that are very always how to behold, or something that will do this regardless, what we even say On our side is better, because... not being reflected. I think that's fine, because we've done difficult... to reflect people's words at that time those people do not reflect that currently, we're going to justify because it's the only way for people to be able to access all dignity and freedom that they're supposed to be having. In that regard, you said to the secrets of art, you are still able to control yourself dignity in a way you live your life. Lastly, though, I want to just rebut a few things about why judges are not as bad. I think, firstly, most of that was mister said, are likely going to be the most educated ones. But certainly they were likely to be who could have escaped the bomb regimes and that go to the west, get educated, have certainly good views. The problem right now is that even if they want to vote in your favor that you know for some point, they want to vote for damage constitution that you have. Lastly, on on our openings, I think, firstly, the what we mechanized better than there is a white constitutions that are unlikely to change, or very hard to change in a way that it's hard for people to access their rights and the things that they deem morally important. But secondly, I think we far better prove the principles to what if you have certain perception of what is morally correct and what is something that you as a person, have a right to, that you should have the ability to defend this even you do not succeed, because it's a way for you to activate either provoke discussion about this topic. We're safe looking at this that you try to predict something that you deem morally important to you. I think this is far more than the more important the way that, if you do not currently are able to exercise your perception of what is modeling right and what you should have at the right in your life, then this is something far more important than how did it impact you? Maybe a sales pitch for That. We'll pause.
</gw>

<ow>
throughout the entirety of the Second World War, and like the Nazi regime in Germany, the Constitution that was officially in for in power was the constitution of the Weimar Republic that gave like legal protections such as freedom of speech and association. Obviously those were not followed in that time period. What is the point I'm making here? What is written in a constitution is not as relevant as what people are buying into and the rights that people believe exists in the state, and that is where extension comes in, right? We're saying is to, first of all, one piece of framing and why that makes our institute, our extension. The most impactful thing this debate does. This debate is not about specific legal decisions for individual people, but what people perceive to be the rights that are the Constitution and a lot of direct, robust comparison, comparison to your issues. Constitutional cases take like forever, right? Constitutional cases are usually like regress once something is already happened. The row in Roe versus Wade never actually got the abortion that she fought the case for, because by the time the decision was made, she already given birth, right? What does this mean? This means, I think, this debate is not necessarily about the things that happen in the courtroom, specifically, whether people specifically can be like, can be given right or wrong in the court. I think this particular thing about this faith is what Braden talks about, is where people buy into rights existing and rights being a thing, and therefore changing the understanding of morality we have in the society at large and in public, appeal to certain to these certain rights. Right we talk about opening up. It started with opening up, reducing logic, opening governments say two main things. First of all, this right of justice is more responsive to societal movements and changes of the opinions in society. Four responses to that. First of all, this assumes that constitutions move incredibly slowly, and it's largely based on the idea that the United States Constitution never, like very other changes. The reason why it's the case was the United States Constitution is one of the most terribly designed political documents in the world. Like I can literally just counter example and say, like, Switzerland changes constitution about three times a year. Ireland does it every few years. I don't understand why that's true. But then B, we think judges are less likely to follow societal movements, because judges are generally decoupled from society to certain extent. Right? Judges usually are not as much in the public focus. Judges usually don't face re election pressures. Definitely a fewer incentives to actually go along with with like popular opinion, like an activist junction has a certain ideology is much more likely to be ruling with little accountability than, like a whole political body that can change a constitution thirdly. But again, like emergency cases where the Constitution and public opinion are really decoupled, that still gets addressed north side of house, right? Like Braden tells you it is poi to opening up about how, like Roe v Wade was constructed on like, multiple interpretations of the Constitution that can still happen in our side of housing. It's genuinely so hard to change that constitution. Thirdly, but fourthly, sorry, I think we flipped this point. We're saying that when we have this point of this discussions about changing constitution, these rights are like elaborated more in the public discussion and more on true democratic process, you have more buying. You have more acceptance, and more acceptance of the societal movements on the legal sphere. I'll take you in a second. Then second thing they say is you get better justice for minorities in particular, they assume that this justice ideal is more objective than their skills rights. We don't understand why right by their own acceptance from the DPM is usually a trade off of rights. It's completely unclear why, a situation where both people are claiming their justice has been violated in a certain way, they're going to rule in favor of the minority. Right. Look at when someone is saying that their justice has been violated because they have been, like, exploited, on on against the law, and someone says that their justice has been violated, they haven't been able to, like, follow economic freedom. We don't know why a judge is not just going to sign as the economic freedom on it, right? But if, finally, you also just think that is, even if it's true that you get worse, even if it's true that you get worse, you bet better results in the courtroom. Specifically, we don't necessarily think this matters when this is unlikely to be pushed on like a more broader scale and not an enumerated right you can point to and create public pressure outside the court of saying, I should have this right to freedom of speech, I should have this right to freedom of assembly. I should have this right to whatever right it is, because we think that when this case is more likely, that it's just going to be ignored in the broader population, right? Because most people cannot constantly litigate because, like, going to the courts is really expensive. It takes a lot of time. That means a lot of people, even if the court might rule in their favor, if they were to go to court, might still just abstain from doing things that are contentious, because they don't know whether the courts are going to rule their favor, and therefore people are still not going to dare to exercise their freedom of speech when they don't know for sure whether they don't actually have the backing of the court. Now we'll take opening.

<poi>
Yeah, under rubbish. It was struck down because my new constitutional texture was details. This seems to prove our point that instead, it should be endorsing general societal rights. We understand that abortion is okay. This constitution can't protect these things.
</poi>

I'm completely unsure why. Like six Republican justices, they're all voted for striking down Roe versus Wade would rule in favor of abortion near side a house near never explained why they would all right. Moving on to closing government. Closing government. Tell me that laws should reflect morality of society. Laws that right should reflect the like morality of society and like the moral subjectivity of society. I'm very, very unclear why there is a point in favor of those things being decided relatively arbitrarily by a judge, rather than by a political process that involves multiple members of society and basically as many people as possible, right? We completely agree with this characterization, this principle. We think that brings you a lot of analysis of why when you have democratic, democratic processes. Sorry, English, hard, but if democratic processes that are going to be that are enshrining constitutional rights through deliberation and discussion in a whole society, you're much more likely to actually reflect all society in that process, right? Whereas on their side of House, is much more likely that judges are going to decide in a somewhat biased way, because buy it, because judges are more likely to come from like the same groups, because only certain groups of society are likely to actually like go to law school and make a massive legal career, even if you're not from these groups, once you are going through this person, you probably have assimilated. You're being more upper class. You're being more educated, etc. Therefore, the thing is, more likely that the vast array of moral Viewpoints is acknowledged when you have this democratic persons in place, finally weighing up against opening opposition. We think that, first of all, they're talking about these troubled states, right? We think in these threats particularly, it is probably not that important what the decision in the courtroom is going to be, because even if, like, a judge is going to say, yeah, you buy the Constitution, actually do have a right to be gay, that probably does not stop the average conservative Polish person that inherits rights from being homophobic towards you, right? Because it's unclear why, in a situation where you don't have that bind and only brain analyzes why it happens more on our side of house, people are actually going to like, respect your rights, rather than still just tread on them and hope they don't get litigated against. prior to proposed.
</ow>
<pm>
We are currently living in unprecedented economic times where despite a crippling war and a brutal pandemic, energy companies have emerged victorious. Opening government is going to wrap it for this and make the world more fair. I was, I'm going to start by describing what these policies look like and then talk about two things. Firstly, what this leads to: a lot more money for governments and why that money is good. In Sacramento, this is, it's the process of diversification. What do these policies currently look like? We're talking about windfall tactics that currently exist in countries like the UK, where a portion of the profits that companies are making, which occur during periods of high energy taxes, are being taxed for handsomely. And we support the continuation of this process. Note the policies and how they exist are also combined with tax incentives for investment in green energy as well.

We support the continuation of that trend. First claim: why is more money a force for good? I want to characterize why there's just a lot more money going to governments rather than just a small piece of cake. The first reason for this is that we have to acknowledge the mass amounts of profits that were made during the initial stages of the war in Ukraine. Oil was literally selling for over 120 dollars a barrel, which is really double what it was selling a few years before. What this means is that profits were so excessive that the net budgets of these companies are extremely large. Secondly, in countries that have energy sectors and are producing industries, these companies are massively profitable. Oil is often a large portion of GDP, but even aside from that, we're talking about some of the richest companies in the world. Literally, Exxon bio, by some estimates, has made over 300 billion dollars a year. These are larger than entire sectors and entire industries that these states literally have.

Maybe that only a minor increase in taxation results in a cumulatively large amount of money given the sheer power of these companies. Why are these policies good? Firstly, on a humanitarian level, it is very important to recognize the context which the currency of taxation is existing under. Governments are incredibly fiscally stressed. Even before the invasion of Ukraine, the COVID pandemic meant that businesses shut down, and a lot of state money had to be spent on measures supporting small businesses and had to be spent on supporting households. The invasion worsened all of these trends by increasing the price of energy, which also created streams but also formed export and supply chains that ultimately existed as a consequence of this.

There are two observations: the first that governments need more cash in order to support their social safety nets, spending more money on the welfare state, the fact that small businesses still have lingering harms from the pandemic, and they're going to need increased degrees of support. But secondly, about lowering the harms of austerity policies as well and decreasing the necessity for them in the first place. Governments currently apply your debt to GDP ratios that they did before, so having an increase in funding is inherently stabilizing in terms of their ability to tap into international credit markets by lowering the perceived risk of investing with these states. Overall, they only do like Nissan money but got things like lower interest rates and they can just spend more money. I think policies can offset from the Department mandated austerity policies that are ultimately existing under.

I want to note here that the redistributions are only utilitarianly practical, but it's also a moral necessity as well. I want to note that we don't think energy companies have any more claim to wealth that was that was accrued during arbitrary circumstances than more than the average citizen does within these contexts, given that there is no way to morally distinguish the worth between citizen and therefore we all redistribute this money in a way that maximizes the quality of life for the average person rather than rewarding those who are arbitrarily placed in a position of privilege. The second reason why more money is something that's so crucial is that it would get better energy policy specifically. Yes, some money is going to other things like supporting the social safety net, but a lot of money that's generated for women is explicitly used to maintain both positive energy for the average citizen within these states, specifically being combined with price caps.

So governments are basically having price caps and having lower degrees of energy that are funded by these schemes, and the unique ability to sustain these schemes comes from energy taxes. This is for two reasons: firstly, all of the framing about fiscal stress that I explained to you earlier means governments don't have a myriad of alternative revenue sources that they're able to tap into. There is a really essential revenue source for them to sustain things like price caps and energy. Secondly, though, the high interest rate environment that we currently exist under is the also the cost of inflation means that it is part of the governments to take loans to otherwise give this kind of policy because we have to spend more money from those loans on interest payments. What this means is that we are necessary in sustaining policies for cheaper energy. This is important for a few reasons: firstly, it is beneficial for individual citizens' quality of life. You can literally afford to access heating in the winter rather than getting pulled.

Secondly, it's essential for businesses as well to use energy within their own production, paying therefore it can produce cheaper goods. But thirdly, most importantly, this is about sustained political will for sanctions and harsh measures against Russia. The world is currently standing behind Ukraine, but eventually, people are going to get tired when they're becoming warm and when they're struggling to heat their homes. Having the ability to have sustained measures for cheap energy is a vital political tool in order to make it politically viable to get the same tough measures against Russia. This is crucial because as a war reaches more of an equilibrium period where they're going to begin their spring offensives, this gives a blast of changing more leverage over Russia, and things like sanctions and policies are remaining in place, putting that a negotiated settlement is likely to be more favorable towards Ukraine.
For a given, per second argument about diversification, i will take that

<poi>
look, we're obviously not going to argue that it's great to produce companies to profit as much as they can. What we are going to argue is that this is not the best way to stop the profits, which by the way push inflation even higher. The more you legitimize them raising their product,
</poi>

like how else do you stop profits? By taxing them. And if you're going to argue that there are other ways to stop profits, that literally looks like you were debating for proposition motion. This is direct, it is targeted, and it harms companies who are profiting the most. How do we get diversification? The first everything that I want to do here is why companies still have the money to diversify regardless. As an odd cannot make claims that these companies are not going to be financially stressed.

The first trivial observation here is only a windfall tax on companies that are already profiting. We are taxing their profits; we are not taxing their revenues. Energy companies are financially strength, are not going to be subject toward a policy. But more than that, energy companies have large capital reserves. The first reason for this is that they just made a lot of money, just given that oil is basically an inelastic thing. People need energy in order to survive whenever demand code has been very high historically. But secondly, the kind of companies that we are discussing are going to be subjected to the windfall tax are the kind of companies who have the cheapest production. First, they occupy first-generation oil fields, which had the easiest extraction processes. But secondly, the production process has been equipped to benefit the most from economies of scale that exist under the status quo. So these properties are mathematical; you're just like reducing two of the megas in the mega. They're going to have the capacity to diversify regardless financially.

A lot of people higher incentive 200 or something of a house. This is for two structural reasons: firstly, we are shifting the relative profitability of different types of energy that companies are existing in. We can see that companies probably have a long run incentive to move into green energy regardless. This is nothing incentive for all energy companies on the other side as well. Why is it often seen as being riskier? It requires initial investment; they already have their oil fields. Remember, their marginal incentive is to tap into that. But given the fact that we're only taxing windfall profits from oil in particular, we are not taxing from renewables. The marginal incentive now becomes to shift into more sustainable forms of production to avoid being subjected to windfall taxes that are going to exist into the future, and therefore we get more diversification within that capacity.

Our second mechanism is, well, they get more diversification is that state regulation of companies becomes easier. No other has to be effectively create more competitive energy sectors to get larger companies who are the ones generating windfall profits, and they're going to be asymmetrically subjected to increased levels of taxation. Therefore, you're likely to reduce your bargaining power that ExxonMobil has relative to other companies. What this means is that it's more or less like that you're going to get political capture. You have the broadest energy companies effectively paying off state regulators to resist pushes in order to get more moves to bring energy. Overall, for all these reasons, I'm extremely proud to be opening government.
</pm>

<lo>
I want to quickly note that these oil companies and gas companies aren't just money widgets, right? They don't sit on their money. I think probably what you do with this money, like any other corporation, they probably redistribute in some form. That's to say dividends, payouts through stocks, all these sort of things that I think are good. And I think to some degree mitigate this principle of like these companies don't deserve arbitrary wealth. So I'm going to engage with that anyways. Okay, first argument on why this is just an acceptable range of volatility and one of them practically important. But let's just say that I think natural markets, especially oil markets, tend to go up and tend to go down, right? That is to say that you don't know which way is which. You, as a company, who've chosen to enter this industry have chosen to take on a significant level of risk, right? You could get screwed over by lower prices at some point, like has happened when it went negative, and you also get the benefit when it goes up.

What do I think that's important? Because I think when you have made a significant choice to invest your own capital when there are massive amounts of risk at the outlet, right? I think you deserve to have a privileged level of wealth at the end of it. What do I mean by this? Let's say you're an average individual, right? You study really, really hard, like go to a good university, and at the end, they say, "Ah, no university deserves that diploma because that's a special level of wealth, a special level of selection." I don't think that's how the principle works, right? Because these companies have made unique contributions and unique investments. I think you want to reward them for that risk. If they added—no thank you—if you haven't experienced the downfall, then I think they also deserve to experience the other ball, right?

Broadly, I think you have to accept from a certain level of person. I think in this way we can't distinguish between different levels, like different people, not just because they have different worths, but rather because they take on different levels of risk, different levels of investment. I think basically, like if you invest in something, you're going to pay out. That's pretty intuitive. But on the practical, right, why do I think it's really helpful here, basically on the competitions? Because I think currently there are very few emergent oil and gas companies for obvious reasons, right? High startup costs, all those sort of things. They're not really that much potential for new exploration in this field, but I do think that's it. No thank you. I think it's really quite useful for people who have more of these companies, right? For a reason, I'll explain in a moment.

The thing is, I think that in order to explore a new oil field or a new gas field, you need massive levels of potential return in order to make that worth your while, right? I think Naomi themselves say that it's a really, really high risk for companies to do this, and therefore you need to incentivize them with large payouts, right? You need access returns essentially, both to make it worth it. Here's a risk and secondly, just to finance the startup costs because it is not cheap to build a new oil rig; it costs a lot of money, so you need a lot of excess profits in order to do this. Why is it so important that we allow new companies and new merchants in this space for three reasons? Right? I think one, if you have more new companies and smaller companies entering the space because they no longer fear a windfall tax and have the like I'll call proper capacity to build new oil wells and things, that just increases competition, right? I think competition is a very good thing, and the goal of government is to lower prices and increase the accessibility of energy, but I think competition is a great way to do that, having more competitors.

No thank you. All over the price. But secondly, though, right? Also note that like you have people just like really need energy right now. I think it's a good thing to be able to offer them more of a good that, like when people cannot heat their homes in the UK or in certain parts of the US, I think it's a really, really bad thing. I think we do have some sort of obligation—I’ll give them more money—no thank you. And thirdly, by exploring new oil and gas fields, you just create more energy. You can be like, as in you increase the supply curve of energy, which is like innately going to lower the price. I think that makes it more accessible for all these reasons. I think that's a good thing.
We're moving on. I'll take closing of the house.

<poi>
The vast majority of these rainfall taxes do not apply to renewables. In the long run, people get cheaper energy that also doesn't kill the planet.
</poi>

Okay, so I'm not—I’ll talk about renewables, my third argument, but basically, actually, I'll talk about my third argument. I'll plug that when I get to it. Awesome. Second argument on why I think governments are probably going to be pretty bad at spending this money and why if that's the counter fact that OG wants to argue on, don't think they lose this fit, right? Several reasons here. One, just because of like politically important constituencies. Obviously, I think we all know that governments don't make perfect spending decisions because USA government are politicians. You, as a politician, have one incentive—that's to win an election. How do you win an election? There are only three groups in any election, right? Those who are definitely going to vote for you, those who are definitely not going to vote for you, and those in the middle—the swing states, so to say.

I think that you, as a politician, are that intelligent, intelligently want to use off the money that you prove through this windfall tax on spending on these, like, arbitrary popular houses. Like, if you want to use all these analyses here, I think people deserve equal work, right? I think they deserve equal loss of money. So I don't see why it's fair in this case. To like arbitrarily give this group who just happens to have more diverse political beliefs arbitrary levels of money, but I also think it's really, really just bad, right? I don't think it's going to help solve a lot of the economic problems if a lot of the money that you're shoveling in isn't necessarily to solve economic problems or if you help them as needy, but rather just to help those who are arbitrarily in state populations, like in these sort of things.

Also note that because this is a particularly too much experience, I don't think there's a lot of government oversight right now, right? Especially because these are like quite opaque measures, like where you like do individual levels of government spending doesn't have a lot of oversight tracks. No one's looking where exactly the final budget is going. That's why I think there's also going to be—like sometimes we need people to have money; they don't do it. But secondly, I think governments are probably short-terminals for pretty intuitive reasons, right? Political incentives are unique to win the next election, which means that you're going to focus on trying to win the next election by spending accordingly, right? Let me say you're not going to invest more on my projects; rather, you're just going to invest in the short run, which makes it look good for your political populists who are then going to vote for you. No thank you.

What that means is, um, like on the comparative basically, right? Because obviously they can say, "Ah, but we don't turn the money in any good ways." Look, worldly, as I said earlier, this profit isn't just sitting in some bank account, right? It goes to people through dividends; it goes to people who stockholding; it goes to people through all these sort of things. One other thing that's better because I think regular people tend to make better spending decisions, right? Let's just say if you have a problem the government wants to solve. I failed to see what someone who is more approximating the problem and who has a greater knowledge of the problem cannot make you a better spending decision when they receive the money through their pensions, through their dividends, on how to resolve that problem if what they want to do is spread money to the populations. I think we do in a far more beneficial manner.

Moving on to my third argument, What profits are broadly helpful to people. I think this broadly like cautions exactly with what Naomi was saying. First argument here on like stabilizing portfolios. Because I think oil and gas is obviously like a really, really major resource that people tend to think is stable, tend to have like major investments from a lot of like a variety of funds, things like pensions, right? It's the fundamental basis of the economy. That's what I think, especially if you haven't ever find a portfolio, obviously you're going to use some of that investment to go into the energy space. What does that look like? It looks like, you know, holding these sort of stocks and mutual funds; it looks like pension funds investing in them; it looks like regular people, regular elderly people who are relying on it for their retirement to ensure that they get their dividend. Why is it so important then we don't impose a windfall tax? That's out of order because I think at this point you need to make sure these people who are relying on You too, like, have their livelihood basically made, don't have their problems really taken away from them, right?

Also note that big clothing market is so volatile at this point. If you impose a windfall tax and if you continue building with both houses, I think that has like an outsized arm on like stock prices, right? Because people are panicking. That's going to cause like an overly sensitive decrease in like the price of stocks, which is probably a bad thing because these people are relying on it for their own well-being. I think it's a really bad thing to do. Finally, on green innovation, while we get better on our side, right? Broadly, I think these companies are probably going to invest in green innovation for a lot of the obvious reasons, right? Research and development is common. I think they know this is a dying industry. They eventually need to, like, transition to green if they want to survive. Secondly, there's this personal advantage, so each company wants to be doing this. And thirdly, like, we're increasingly incentivized by things like tax breaks, which are not inclusive, but I think happen on our side as well. They have a unique capacity to do this on our side because, one, you need larger levels of profit to get over the sort of levels of profit you need to pay out dividends. So we need them to expand into new massive levels of innovation.

They're quite significant startup costs and require significant returns on risk, right? So, and then on our side, we get better levels of innovation by the companies who are uniquely qualified to do so. For all these reasons, so proud to oppose.
</lo>

<dpm>
If this—why is this policy justified—which seems to be part of the pack we get from opening opposition? I would note several things. This thing would have claimed this acceptable volatility in prices. I just don't think this is true because it doesn't understand how energy companies actually operate. What would you do as an oil company when prices were very low? You don't simply provide energy or oil at that price; you instead store it. You store it in your barrels, you store it in your warehouses, and as a result, you put your prices further up. That is why these companies still make reasonable profits at all times, and they make supernormal profits at other times.

In other words, what they are doing is that even in periods of low profitability or low prices, they are manipulating the market in order to ensure that they maintain the restore balance of profit and Just use the tuition club. That is exactly what OPEC or OPEC plus does. That isn't an energy company they say, but the same kind of thinking that you change the supply conditions and what you offer to the market during periods when prices are low. Secondly, why is this justified? We gave you three reasons which they never responded to this. We made a utilitarian claim, so there is no reason why these companies need that much anymore. No, there's no response to that. But secondly, it is unclear to me why they deserve higher profits just because of the random fact that the oil company with a license, which is granted their value to stay in a period of unprecedented crises, particularly these are the Russia and Ukraine. What is their moral right to be able to gain supernormal profits during those periods?

Thirdly, these are the companies which particularly don't deserve it because of the externalities of their behavior—someone to talk about later, some of the highlights, for instance, the pollution caused by the kinds of actions which are at places right now. If this is a reciprocal obligation, man, and we allowed to tax them more than other companies and ask those costs rights and the environmental cost lines, I don't think it's unreasonable, but it's going to limit their profitability. And if they really think companies have a god-given right to level profitability, they would have to believe you can't change corporation tax rates. Do they believe you can't have tax incentives? The same kinds of companies? Do they even do they even oppose, for instance, increasing the rate or taxing people to pay at the petrol pump, which would factor into reducing the profitability these companies make?

Secondly, where does the money go? Now, we told you the money could be used in lots of areas, but what specific area? Well, lots of this money was used for—and I sort of gave you a little bit of a memory jog about a year ago—what was happening? Why did we introduce these caps? Why do we introduce these new taxes? It's because governments realize the number one issue voters were facing, whether you're on boat, is voters in the middle, was the price of energy. Only got thousands perfectly; it's about whether you can heat your home. That is the alternative issue for almost every single individual. But the word are the easy ways of being able to fund it, particularly them so obvious reasons, the fact of mass fiscal overhang, it's spent to go back from the COVID prices, the difficulty in actually getting affordable debt as interest rates continuously go up. That is why the energy price cap was one of the most important issues which you're going to focus on.

The analysis the other side gives us convinces beyond just look, both a vote, you want to support your constituency. I think you probably also will get support from everyone, and those people in the middle and your constituency will care that energy price caps—and they say governments are short-term. Okay, if that is true, they spend money on edge of these price caps and reduce austerity. That's probably good. I don't think governments even are actual terrorist here, but they're fights. One of the reasons, if you think about a government, yes, you have a prime minister, a few people at the top; they want to ensure terms, but how about everyone else in that government? The person who wants to be still in politics 20, 10 years from now? There are other people in government who go, "I want to be prime minister." If my current—if the current conservative government said it's to totally ruin the economy as they were, that harms everyone else at the party and other important decision-makers in cabinet, and you probably can't even get it past a legislature. That's why governments aren't even as short-termist as they suggest.

And let me just express the importance of this stuff that they didn't even decide to mention or engage with, which is it wasn't just beneficial because that helps consumers, but the impact of that was literally support for Ukraine and swore against Russia. It significantly impacts the ability and willingness of Europeans to continue, particularly Europeans, to continue to support that. But they otherwise could get cheaper energy, or they don't feel that they are having austerity imposed on them, and therefore they are less likely to demand very significant changes to policy. Now, I don't mean that they can change their support or lift all sanctions immediately—there's obviously a spectrum here. What that could easily mean is support for very rapid negotiations for reducing some of these sanctions, for not having other kinds of measures which would otherwise be advised—that is significant impact of this argument.

The final claim I would define the Political Banks, what happens in the law cap and there is two claims from the opposition here But this claim is we need these companies to make a huge amount of money so that they can get more oil or have more uh drill for more oil or gas. I don't think we actually want that, but there's a couple of obvious reasons. One is environmental, and we definitely don't want people to be putting more and more money into oil and gas—that's green tech. But secondly, let's just look at the analysis they give you, which is it is really useful that people have cheap sources of energy. That is not an argument for the oil rates, but you have to discover it. But the oilers start drilling and then market that—that's like a 10 to 50 year process, which probably doesn't lead to cheap oil right now.

The stronger claim on this, which we've already talked about, is the impact of green tech and the changing incentives which companies actually face. There are a couple of things which we noted on this. Why once the logical change in incentives here? We know that you now have a greater risk of taxes; the money you're getting from oil, but a reduced set of taxes, at least comparatively, for money you get for green tech. That is because the way these policies were designed—just a common-sense reason—when these policies were implemented due to the economic conservatives, whether you're a barge the same department, you hey from the CDU of Germany, or even newspapers like the active Wall Street Journal looked at this problem, that if you just tax them, you don't have tax breaks, there will otherwise be a potential decrease.

So as a result, you have tax incentives or reduced tax rates for real gains. Why does that matter? One, because these companies already have money that can invest more. But secondly, marginal change in the potential profitability of oil investment or gas investment versus green tech investment is significantly different different. I agree with opening; they're already incentives for you to do it; we would increase those incentives, so you end up doing it instantly sooner than you otherwise would. Why is that before that We'll tell you about the regulatory environment, and also it makes it easy to pass these kinds of measures on the companies going forward as they do become weaker, but they're no longer the hundreds of millions of dollars with the most valuable companies in the world. That is what it is easier for you to be able to regulate these companies.

It is—that is a huge benefit. It makes it easier to put these kinds of policies in place without the barriers which will otherwise exist. At the end of this debate, this is a justified policy. The money helps individuals and in particular can help improve continuous support for Russia. And the long term this is beneficial for green tech, but very happy to propose.
</dpm>

<dlo>
To be clear, with the comparison of this debate, opposition believes that if you put the money in the coffers of the government, it may be used to help a cost of living crisis. Indeed, Drew and I will say some of that money will go to solving that cost of living crisis. The critical distinction on comparative is how much of that money goes there.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.