[ Home | TOC | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: NY
Date: 8/29/2016
Time: 9:40:30 AM
Remote Name: 188.143.232.15
A financial advisor <a href=" http://www.plantskydd.com/losartan-potasico-50-mg-nombre-comercial.pdf#identify ">losartan potassium hydrochlorothiazide side effects</a> Actually, yeah, it usually is (especially in an Econ 101 context, which is what the authors are supposedly criticizing), for better or for worse, since that’s the only thing that economists really know how to measure. When you figure out a good way to measure fairness and warm fuzzies, let me know. Notice that I’m not saying that a sole focus on efficiency is justified, but rather that there is an opportunity to plug what economists have to say about efficiency into a larger policy discussion. I don’t even know how to address the authors’ point about creative destruction, since…huh? Also, I’ve never heard any economist say that technological progress is bad because it’s inefficient, so seriously, wtf? <a href=" http://www.independentyoganetwork.org/esomeprazole-magnesium-trihydrate-tablets-usp-monograph.pdf#rule ">is prilosec ok in pregnancy</a> A similar argument was made by the Bank of Ireland (BOI) when it turned to small print in mortgages to increase repayment demands from more than 12,000 homeowners who took out tracker mortgages from 2003 with the BOI and Bristol and West.