My main intention in my argument was to convince you that moral hazard exists in current social welfare programs. Judging by your statements, you were already aware of this, but rely on discussion points that deny it exists. Starting off an argument with such a clearly untrue line of discussion sets up pretty poor grounds for an honest talk.
That's all I intend for this. There's room for agreement on some other points, but I doubt it would be a productive conversation when you deny the existence of the downside tradeoffs of your preferred policies.
That's all I intend for this. There's room for agreement on some other points, but I doubt it would be a productive conversation when you deny the existence of the downside tradeoffs of your preferred policies.