Don't we all? So I gave my Baileys a splash of milk, dropped a rolo in and am drinking it while the caramel soaks. Turned out pretty good, but never ever use a microwave.
Jesus, people. pop·u·lace noun 1. the common people of a community, nation, etc., as distinguished from the higher classes. 2. all the inhabitants of a place; population. Perhaps I should have said "the board's populace". But I've been hitting the sauce, so.
So are you talking about Jesus who loves the populace, or are you just talking about people, which are kind of like the populace?
In response to angel's rep, I've been hitting the sauce and I haven't had dinner, either. Maybe I should eat something.
I still don't think your sentence made any sense. In other news, I've decided this is going to be a Gucci Mane weekend. CHICKENS GO FO THURRRRRTY CHICKENS GO FOR THURRRRTY
But as an economist, shouldn't you have already known that humans aren't perfectly rational agents? Or did I just blow your mind?
We know what "populace" means. It's because you said "population" instead of "opinion." I really want it to be tomorrow already. And I want an ice cream cake really fucking badly. When was the last time I had an ice cream cake? I can't remember. But suddenly I need one.
A little tardy to the party, I GIS'ed "otter". Amongst all the adorable, cute, cuddly, sweet little otter faces, I saw one face that looked... out of place. NSFW It's seriously NSFW.[rnsfw]I warned you. Spoiler I FUCKING WARNED YOU. [/rnsfw] What the hell? How is that an otter? Goddamned kids with their urban dictionary slang shit. Ugh. All I wanted was cuddly creatures. And now I've gone and seen that which cannot be unseen.
Thomas Sargent is going to be so pissed at this thread. /nerdjoke Well to be fair, the caption was "I'm gonna use this to fuck the shit otter you."
Gahhh ok, this is completely unwarranted but I hate that people think economic theory assumes perfect rationality. It absolutely does not. There are only TWO assumptions required for the majority of the theoretical framework of microeconomic consumer theory to hold. They are completeness and transitivity. Completeness means given options/bundles of goods to choose, people will say either bundle A is better than bundle B, B > A, or B=A, in terms of how much happiness they derive from it. These rankings must be consistent, all else constant. The other assumption is transitivity which simple says if I rank bundle A higher than bundle B and bundle B higher than bundle C, then I will also rank bundle A higher than bundle C. That's it. That's all you need for about 75% of the theory to hold. [/econ nerd rant] Boobs, for those who don't give a shit.
I think people say that because all economic theory starts with self interest. You know, Adam Smith and all that. Therefore rational people will want irrational goods. You're talking about the curves and opportunity cost. Or something. I'm drunk. I always thought economic theory understated the importance of impulse purchases on the economy.