And the rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious.

The lost opportunities are enormous.

The letter does not only make a political argument.

The same reasoning applies to the Greek crisis.

Her line of reasoning is attractive, but ultimately fallacious.

Their loss is our gain.

The case against Bernanke rested partly on his performance before the crisis.

The argument for investing in disaster preparedness is simple.

In short, the benefits are at best small.

This reasoning can apply as well to how we regard adults.

If a reasoned argument cannot move us, what can?

But here, too, the potential benefits are slim.

The reduced deficits would restore confidence, which would restore investment and thus growth. But, as plausible as this line of reasoning may sound, the historical evidence repeatedly refutes it.

But, as plausible as this line of reasoning may sound, the historical evidence repeatedly refutes it.

The economic benefits, estimated to be between five and nineteen times higher than the costs, are dramatic.

It makes good political sense it could make good business sense as well.

The real economic benefit, however, is in the cost savings thereafter.

For many poor countries, wealth in natural resources is a curse rather than a benefit.

If they succeed, the rewards for the world s poor will be immense.

Over the coming decades, the total benefit would reach about 22 trillion.

Today, the risks are seen to be much greater, and the benefits are seen to be less.

Ideas matter, as much or perhaps even more than self interest.

So, it is not joining NATO the military alliance that will benefit Romania. What matters is Romania's integration into a strong international organisation, which will curb its sovereignty.

Are state controlled investors now aiming primarily for strategic rather than purely financial returns?

The net effect for Denmark was found to be a small cost , not benefit.

And then they benefit through the exposure, advertising and linked sales.

So, it is not joining NATO the military alliance that will benefit Romania.

With that third option, though, there s no state requirement that the environmental benefit be in California.

That experience showed that countries default when the costs are lower than the benefits.

The biggest improvements for consumers, though, come not from privatization, but from competition.

Given Europe s fiscal deficits and the economic impact of reducing them, that is a huge potential prize.

Whether or not developing countries benefited was of little concern.

Otherwise, the competitiveness gains would be offset by rising inflation.

Motorists would be attracted to participate because of the value of the benefits it offers to them, says a city planning document.

And there are all these animals, and all these people happy, and there's this economic value.

The economic benefits of rebalancing the global labor market are compelling the human costs of failing to do so are enormous.

Nevertheless, what benefit does China gain by continuing to raise these issues 60 years later?

It is doubtful that there is a positive benefit net of future cost from jiggling tax rates to stabilise employment.

While the economic benefits we get from biodiversity might seem intangible, they are real and quantifiable.

The one advantage of this town life was that here they never quarrelled.

How amazing! Experts have been saying for two years on television that these sanctions have only been beneficial.

Here's the argument put forward by proponents of the notion that the revolution started on March 15, 2011 On that day, a small protest took place in Al Hareeqa in Damascus.

The benefits of default are the savings on future payments by the government especially payments to non residents, who cannot vote.

Benefits would appear almost immediately, but would dissipate over time as economies developed.

The costs would also come much sooner than the benefits and persist much longer.