https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/olga-from-g...And American low-information voters are drooling at the prospects of being like Greece. They now have hope.
This belongs on the PA board. Those numb nuts need to see where Owebama-style policies are taking ;us.
But California is beginning to catch up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a780LGWG7to~aj
Hey Happy Balloon Day Average Joe!!!!!!!
She looks horribly in need and poverty-stricken. Thank 0 that he takes care of people like that. He's so compassionate.........with my money.
Wasn't it Seattle Pioneer who used to say, "If the government is dumb enough to give me something, I'm not going to refuse to take it"? Well, IMO that's all this woman is doing.
Wasn't it Seattle Pioneer who used to say, "If the government is dumb enough to give me something, I'm not going to refuse to take it"? Well, IMO that's all this woman is doing.I daresay not even anyone on this board would refuse a handout. That's the point. Human nature is always at work, and human nature will take the path of least resistance every time. That's not what builds great countries, however, so social policies that reinforce human nature are not what make great countries.Were this not true, there would be lines forming outside every health club. Human beings are always fighting againt our nature.
Wasn't it Seattle Pioneer who used to say, "If the government is dumb enough to give me something, I'm not going to refuse to take it"? Well, IMO that's all this woman is doing.I daresay not even anyone on this board would refuse a handout. That's the point. Human nature is always at work, and human nature will take the path of least resistance every time. That's not what builds great countries, however, so social policies that reinforce human nature are not what make great countries.Have you ever heard of the Ultimatum Game?It isn't really a game, it's a set of related psychology experiments.It works like this. People are paired up. The experimenter offers each pair $10, on this basis: one person in the pair - the "proposer" decides how to divide the $10 between them, and then the other person - the "decider" hears that decision and decides between taking the money and letting the experimenter keep it. No negotiation, just one proposal and one decision.Obviously, the economically best division for the proposer is to weight the division heavily in his own favor - maybe $9 to $1. And the economically best choice for the decider is to take whatever is offered, because getting even one cent is economically better than getting nothing.As long as the participants know that they are paired with a person, and it's one-on-one pairing, the large majority of proposers suggest that the decider will get between $4 and $5. And the less the proposer offers the decider, the more likely it is that the decider will choose to get nothing.Apparently people value fairness - even in non-repeated anonymous exchanges with random strangers.When the decider is told that their proposer is a computer, they tend more to take whatever "the computer" offers. Similarly a proposer will tend to more strongly favor himself over "the computer". Apparently they don't feel a need for or expectation of fairness in dealing with non-persons.When the situation is modified where each proposer's proposal goes to multiple deciders until one takes it or a limit is reached, and the experiment participants know of this, proposals get tilted in the proposer's favor and all deciders are more likely to take an imbalanced proposal. Similarly, if each decider gets shown multiple proposals and can take any one or none, proposals get tilted in the decider's favor. Apparently people recognize and accept that the relatively-scarce side of the transaction is more valuable than the relatively-abundant side.This is part of human nature too.
This may be a clearer explantion of the game called Ultimatum, also known as Nash Equilibrium after John Nash, subject of the movie, "A Beautiful Mind."You're standing on the sidewalk with a friend, minding your own business, when a man approaches with a proposition. He offers you $20 in $1 bills and says you can keep the money under one condition: You must share with your friend. You can offer as much or as little as you like, but if your friend rejects your offer, neither of you can keep any of the money. What do you do?Now you've got the $20 in your hand and your friend watches you expectantly. Will you low ball your friend? Will you split the money evenly? Will you be generous? Under a strictly utilitarian view of economics, you would give your friend the lowest possible amount. In this case, you've got twenty $1 bills, so you would give your friend a dollar. Since it's found money, your friend should accept the dollar. Your friend might call you cheap, or perhaps offer a bit of gratitude drizzled generously with sarcasm but, hey, at least he got a dollar out of it. (Personally, I would split the money evenly with my friend on the premise that it was only chance that I was given the $20 and not her.)The thing is, this strictly utilitarian view doesn't translate to how people actually behave when faced with this decision. In experiments based on the Ultimatum game, test subjects on the receiving end routinely reject offers they perceive to be too low. In other experiments, subjects who must choose how much to give often offer more than the lowest amount.In the real world, if the money was extended to me and the other person was a stranger, I would give the stranger the lowest amount I perceived he would accept.