Re: Food: When is it a right or a handout?

[larson@xxxxxx]

Where is Hyman Blumenstock when we need him?
/srl

Quoting Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>
>
> > From: rosserjb@xxxxxxx
> > Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:31:54 -0500
> > To: Barry Brooks <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Food: When is it a right or a handout?
> >
> > Let me see, given the orientation of most on
> > this list, is not the case of being involuntarily
> > unemployed not a sixth case?  Do we not have people
> > are none of 1-5 but who are unable to find someone
> > willing to hire them to do anything?
> > Barkley Rosser
>
>
> That is another discussion. Involuntary unemployment
> is not a choice by definition. I was considering when
> unemployment is a preferred to employment.
>
> Harry Veeder
>
>
>
> > --On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:05 PM -0500 Barry Brooks
> > <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> What I mean is...if an individual chooses not to work for money,
> while
> >>> there is a shortage of food being produced by the nation, it is a
> sign
> >>> the individual is either (1) mentally ill or (2) lazy.
> >>>
> >>> Harry Veeder
> >>
> >> One might add a very respectable case.
> >> (3) rich
> >>
> >> I think 3 is just as respectable as 4.
> >> (4) on the dole
> >>
> >> Or, what ever we may think of it 5 is common.
> >> (5) a crook
> >>
> >> It is possible to be 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the same time.
> >>
> >> What have I left out?
> >>
> >> Barry Brooks
> >>
> >
>
>



--
Sven R Larson
PhD; Assistant professor of economics
Department of Social Sciences, Bldg. 22.2
Roskilde University
Pb 260
DK-4000 Roskilde
Telephone: (+45) 4674 2910