There is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if there's one thing I've learned throughout my work in finance, government, and conservation, it is to act before problems become too big to manage.
Henry PaulsonRead
Economic growth and environmental protection are not at odds. They're opposite sides of the same coin if you're looking at longer-term prosperity.
Interpretation
Economic growth and environmental protection are interconnected and can mutually benefit long-term prosperity.
In this quote, Henry Paulson emphasizes the idea that economic growth does not have to come at the expense of environmental health. Instead, he argues that fostering economic development while also taking care of the environment leads to a more sustainable and prosperous future, where the well-being of the economy and the planet are seen as two aspects of the same overall goal.
In practice
During a conference on sustainable development, this quote could be cited to emphasize the need for balanced policies.
There is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if there's one thing I've learned throughout my work in finance, government, and conservation, it is to act before problems become too big to manage.
In all my life, I've been trained that when there's a big problem, you run toward it.
Complexity and interconnectedness matter as much as size in assessing risk in banking.
Every global concern - economic, environmental or security-related - can be addressed more effectively when the U.S. and China work together.
I think history shows that countries have to have some kind of a threshold level of economic success before they begin to have the means and the will to focus on the environment.
I've always said to everyone that ever worked for me, if you get too dug in on a position, the facts change, and you don't change to adapt to the facts, you will never be successful.
Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless.
Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually.
It is worth noting that 'too big to fail' is not simply about size. A big institution is 'too big' when there is an expectation that government will do whatever it takes to rescue that institution from failure, thus bestowing an effective risk premium subsidy. Reforms to end 'too big to fail' must address the causes of this expectation.
The laws and conditions of the production of wealth partake of the character of physical truths. There is nothing optional or arbitrary in them ... It is not so with the Distribution of Wealth. That is a matter of human institution solely. The things once there, mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as they like.
On the market, all is harmony. But as soon as intervention appears and is established, conflict is created, for each may participate in a scramble to be a net gainer rather than a net loser - to be part of the invading team instead of one of the victims.
There would be plenty of justification to raise revenues in order to subsidize businesses that employ low-wage workers. But there can be no justification for pandering to the economy's entire bottom half merely to attract its votes.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.