> Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. This discussion isn't as simple as "this is goo

> Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. This discussion isn't as simple as "this is good and this is bad" in black-and-white terms. We're talking specifically about the fact that poverty rates and growth aren't tightly coupled, and I was explaining why. > plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed. This is also what I said (the "soft landing"). Though UI (unemployment insurance) lasts a year or two, so you're sorely mistaken if you think that UI per se functions as a substitute for a social welfare system.