Blowback. Actually I don't even have to elaborate much. Just look at USA's foreign policy's effect.Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Incidentally I have found this entire thread to be an entire waste of my time. Milf here, possibly due to economic illiteracy has posted really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. after really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. which are full of economic fallacies i have taken the time to debunk. As a consequence, if this thread doesn't get deleted any person who can be bothered sifting through it can learn about:
scarcity, the effect of subsidies, conflict resolution absent coercion, and basic economic ideas.
the first post, if we can go back to it, illustrates that the more you subsidise, the less incentive the actor has, since the actor is rational, from expending unnecessary action.
for example if i could get an apartment, video games, computers, food, and a car by working at mcdonald's i have no reason whatsoever to work any harder. if i did, i would actually be wasting time and resources. going back to the other thread on gc "if you had the money what would you do?" - i would do all sorts of things if i had the time and money saved.
alternatively, in a society where technology was so great that the cost of living were virtually non-existent because the yield per labour hour was so great, the amount of leisure would increase dramatically.
in neither case should the actor be seen as negative - and so the attribution 'lazy' in the case of the welfare queen is actually false - the welfare queen sees no reason to exert excessive time and resource to do what was already subsidised, and to call the welfare queen "lazy" is perhaps sour grapes.
so the next time somebody calls you a lazy bum for being on welfare, just laugh at them for not understanding human action and economics.
but feel free to think that pg thinks welfare collectors are lazy. do you even read my posts before you reply? DYEL?
see you guys in a few months.
Reply With Quote