Why do only fools and horses work?

It is also, not exclusively, an automatic stabilizer along with being a form of subsidy for some people who may not have worked or contributed to unemployment compensation.

I don't mind referring to it as unemployment compensation or UI (unemployment insurance) if subsidy makes it more difficult for you to discover better solutions due to any special pleading considerations.

 

Why resort to capitalism, at all, if not for economic forms of discrimination that form a basis for forms of determinants?

 

Under the hypothetical presented, a shirker could be more "noble" and quit for the equivalent to a minimum wage and let persons who may be more conscientious, dedicated, and loyal command an efficiency wage for it.

 

All 3 posts: quite meaningless. Goodbye

 

Most everything that does not agree with Reiver is quite meaningless. Good luck.

 

The thread isn't about economic development. Its about differences in capitalidm and why anglo-saxon stands out. A simple response would just refer to how classical liberalism, in terms of limited government, has traditional played a more dominant role. That's an awkward approach though given, for example, these countries typically have higher military burdens (I.e. There is arguably a trade-off between social expenditures and interventuionism via the military secrtor)

 

Our wars on abstractions could be considered income transfers that primarily benefit the wealthy.