I think you know as well as I do that your honesty and integrity in describing how people are being fucked over by this process excludes you from neoclassical economics. Its always easy to catch out the fakers.

I mean, how am I supposed to justify tax breaks for the rich with that?

Its okay, as I neoclassical economist, I know exactly how to fix this issue.

Tax breaks for the rich.

Ask me to solve any economic problem, I have the answers.

Strangley, 2 days ago they said they’ll have to get the experts out to have a look at it, before they can tell.

What a very quick turnaround that, apparently, was…

Wait a minute, that doesn’t sound like painting at all!

Yeah but, if it was remotely enjoyable, then you might make 2 or maybe even 3% less profit for the lazy, workshy scroungers who own the company.

We can’t have that now can we?

Because “better overall” is a silly concept to use here, and is bring deliberately done to “both sides” the debate.

For driving really fast: petrol

For not killing our planets ability to sustain himan life: electric

Its not that hard

Yup, its starch based and water soluble. It’ll come off with a little water, no harm done.

Actual picture of the pitch tonights game is on

We have courts for that and intent is very much a factor in nearly all cases. So, its not like its something alien that they couldn’t cope with.

To me, if anything, it would add to the weight on a conviction, as the requirements to meet it would be so high.

I mean, for all you know that could be because they’re not giving enough money away to anyone calling themselves an artist.

*So, giving that exact amount of money away to anyone calling themselves an artist doesn’t work, for you personally.

I’m not sure I’d describe practitioners of human sacrifice in quite the same way, myself.

The portrait

Well yeah, the real power (capital) is making even more money from their work. Of course they’ll pay them for being better at it. Its cheaper to pay CEOs more to be horrible than it is to pay people more.

Capital is the problem and shareholders are delighted when anyone takes out their anger on CEOs. I mean, its part of what they pay them for.

I get the feeling, I really do. However, I can’t think of many things that would radicalise someone more than losing all their money or being buried under a pile of debt. Being these sorts of types, they’ll only go one way. On reflection, I’m sure you recognise the very specific and historically recognisable tinder box.

I mean, it still might not be immoral. They can all get fucked. Just, maybe not in that specific way is all im saying.

It was good. Then, they fucked it.

But, if you can find exactly what you’re looking for, you’ll finish up and stop watching adverts.

They wouldn’t have been allowed to win otherwise

*ACAB, in their capacity as cops.

Its ok, they’re doing it to a group of people who also make their money from taking other peoples money. So, cheer away at the poetic justice.

Not your fault of course but it was always a stupid name. It isn’t arrested or inhibited, during a stage of development, resulting in an underdeveloped outcome (retarded). Like a fire retardant door stops the fire developing, as it would usually on doors. In the case of this drug, the release is inhibited, as its, presumably, a pro-drug.

They could have called it “long lasting”, “pro-drug”, “pro”, “inhib” or “slow release” and these would have all been accurate descriptions. However, retarded isn’t accurate. They chose it anyway though.