Schtank

Well, after reading this post I'm not sure there is a right answer to this question; it may simply depend on context. Since I far from need foodstamps, and have saved enough money/work enough to pay for my food costs, I don't think signing up for foodstamps would be proper. However, if I were in dire enough straits, I could see where accepting foodstamps would be OK. But I'm simply not badly enough off to handle the blow to myself-esteem necessary to accept foodstamps. The negatives outway the positives right now. I very much appreciate the input though, and will read the updates to this forum; though I think the answer lies in context.

Hmm all good points. Thanks for the input guys. Though I don't think I'll sign up for foodstamps, I agree with Sapere and don't want to become a statistic that could expand the wealthfare state. Thanks again though, Nick

So I'm looking for some feedback here. I'm a sophomore in college and living on my own, and since I receieve federal work study I'm eligable to apply for foodstamps. Would it be morally permissable to apply for foodstamps? I think that it would, since I work and pay into the system, and Ayn Rand said that one should take advantage of such programs if one can. Still, I'd like some feedback. Thanks, Nick

I think it all depends on how open your Prof is to knew ideas/having his ideas challenged. After spending three years in college, I'm sure that you've realized that Professors aren't the bastione of open mindedness that they profess to be. Having said that, if your prof doesn't mind controversy and won't grade you down for saying something that he disagrees with, I'd stick with your current plan.

A professor showed me this, and I thought it was interesting. Thought I'd share it with you guys.

I don't know much about this, but I've heard that how one evaluates the play Night of January 16th, by Rand, can tell you what kind of sense of life they have. I haven't read the play myself, I just heard that somewhere, I'm sure somebody else on this site knows much more about it.

Hmmm Ok. Thanks guys! I'll look into them, much appreciated.

I'm currently a freshman in college and planning on majoring in economics. I'm taking macroeconomics right now, and am alittle disturbed with the textbook, which is purely Keynesian. I don't want to get brainwashed by default with Keynesian economic views, and so I'm wondering if any of you knew of a good, pro-capitalist economics book (not necessarily a text book) that I could read? Thanks!

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

As I was watching the Superbowl today, I was thinking that this is one of the greatest examples of civilization and capitalism there is. Millions of people gather to watch two teams a game at a high level on super nice TVs with plenty of food, drinks and festivities. Plus, the commercials (for the most part) are trying to sell some good that ill benefit everyones lives. The game takes place in a super nice, advanced stadium, and the half time show is amazing. I always feel a little bit of pride when I watch the superbowl.

What do you guy's make of China's rapid economic growth of recent years? Even though it still seems to be predominantly communist/fascist, China is still catching up to the US in terms of gross GNP and it's economy is growing at a rate of 7% (at least according to my economic professor, I haven't checked these facts myself, but I'm assuming they're correct, and even if they aren't, it does seem that China is catching up to the United States). So my question is, why is the predominantly facsist China catching up to the predominantly United States? Thanks

I was reading my economics book and it says that production can be done by the government. Which got me thinking that the claim is often made that government can stimulate the economy by creating jobs (that is, producing something). More specifically, I often hear people say/argue that if the government builds roads, it both produces something and creates jobs. Why are these claims false? Or are they true, but just immoral? Thanks

Ah. Thanks guys, that was a big help. Much appreciated =)

How would you guys argue against this claim: Countries with single payer systems are more efficient. People living in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Norway Sweden, England etc. have a life expectancy that is about 3 year higher than in the U.S. However, these countries spend half as much of their GDP on healthcare as compared to the U.S. Their per capita expenditure is also about half that of the U.S." I tried to point out that those countries ration healthcare considerably, violate individual rights, and that anytime the government gets involved in an industry it becomes hugely less efficient, but the person I'm argueing against ignores these points. Are there better ways I could present my argument to make it clearer/stronger? Thanks

http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd070909.html