Yeah . It seems that way . Drew ' s words are terse . <| sep |> Thanks for the comprehensive response ! I ' ve found using a Direct Democracy institute helps as well , or perhaps I just expanded so quickly and sectored areas off that I didn ' t even notice these Factions anymore . <| sep |> OP , you ok ? 2 g ? . Damn I wouldn ' t be able to move . <| sep |> Norman is learning while talking shit to ODB can cause him to fall apart , apparently talking shit to Dez will just make him go ham <| sep |> It ' s fucking annoying how much banter the soccer sub throws at Tottenham . <| sep |> I think you ' ve shown your cards with this statement . There are a ton of different schools of thought when it comes to economics . There is no one true religion of the field that you happen to hold as your ideology . A school of economic thought that disagrees with any of those assumptions is not real economics . For instance , claiming capital can be distributed as effectively through a welfare program as through a market is some brand of demagogic economics created to rationalize existing social institutions and cultural mores . That means it ' s impossible to have an objective answer to whether or not causation exists . Yes of course , I ' m giving my opinion here . That ' s granted . So . no shit high social welfare countries have lower growth rates . They ' re already developed nations , the social welfare spending has nothing to do with it . How on Earth could you sit there and claim that increasing the share of economic output that is forcibly redistributed through welfare programs , rather than through the market , will not negatively affect economic development ? There ' s nothing to suggest that we ' ve reached some ceiling in economic output in the developed world , that makes economic growth harder now than it was in the 1950 s . The better explanation is that the massive increase in social welfare spending has slowed economic growth . Pity that doesn ' t do shit for the average citizen of QatarSource ?