Is there a reason why lead bullets should be preferred to non-lead bullets?

Yeah... that's one thing that always got me wondering about Iran.  Oil exports are obviously important to Iran.  However, Iran has shit for oil refineries and, as a result, Iran is in this awkward trade scheme of exporting oil for other countries to refine, then importing refined forms of its own product.

Gasoline is an EXTREMELY touchy subject in Iranian politics.  The Iranian government has been subsidizing gasoline purchases for years in an effort to reduce economic burdens on average citizens.  However, the high costs of the subsidy have brought the Iranian government to, on a number of occasions, attempt to reduce the impact of the subsidy.  For example, in 2008 (before the financial crisis, when oil prices were still high), the Iranian government attempted to ration gasoline for just this purpose... the result?  Massive protests, government capitulates, keeps the subsidies in place without change.

The reason is simple.  Gas prices in Iran, just like in the US, are an important part of Iranian spending, and a very visible representation of the government's economic health.  However, unlike the US, the prices are small enough to where much smaller changes can have much larger impacts.  Additionally, unlike the US, the prices in Iran are determined largely by the Iranian government due to their subsides, an thus when Iranian gas prices increase, there is nobody but the Iranian government to blame.

Oh, and I've discussed this a couple times before, but we know very well that the Iranian people are extremely responsive to economic problems.  The financial crisis forced Iran into a confrontation between the government and the Tehran financial sector over an extremely small tax.  Not to mention the 2009 Iranian election, which brought people forward in droves to fight the government in power, only to see the election most likely rigged against them.  But regardless, unless the Arab Spring crackdown wore the Iranian people down, you can expect that the Iranian people will start up some sort of protesting when they start seeing financial problems.

You don't get an award for "most dishonorable fam!" 

You sponsor the "Arrow to the Knee Victim's Fund"

You take more time to choose your clothes in Skyrim than in real life

You don't think a Jabbawack is an innuendo

Your eyesight slowly starts to degrade after long hours of focusing on your computer screen, and you suspect it's from Skyrim because you've read the Elder Scroll

You could spend an hour debating the politics behind the Stormcloak War, but don't know who's running for President

You've begun to construct a Dragon-English dictionary

But... but...  If you say "this bill will cost $900 billion over a 5 year period..." is it really a fast one if the big refutation is to extend the period of analysis?  How many Dems really said "yeah... after this 5 year period, it's free!  Health care just falls from the sky!"

Except dying.

Indeed.

> RisingDown wrote:

> (although other sea foods, such as crustaceans, are dirt cheap when compared to prices here, but not everyone likes the idea of eating crustaceans)

I love shellfish!  Where do you live that it's cheaper than other fish? 

Oh, I'm not trying to make an argument on the truth value of the statement.  I was merely converting it to an annual income for the purpose of comparison to xeno's argument, for the ease of readers.

Justinian's is clearly the best out of these. 

Remember, though, that "Quality of life" is a function of economic health, in that it requires the resources of an effective economy in order to be effective.

For example, let's say that a no-government interference economy produced a per capita income of $30,000, although inequality did exist.  If the government set a goal of maximizing every individual's quality of life by ensuring every individual had a $30,000 income, the overall productivity would see some reduction as a result of taxation, bureaucracy, incentives to work, etc.  So the government may be able to achieve "equality," but at a lower income due to lower economic activity, so individuals would only receive maybe $15,000 per year or less.

So you can't say that one priority trumps the other priority because both priorities go hand in hand.  Generally, an increase in overall economic development is a net increase in individual quality of life, albeit not at equal levels (case in point: if I asked you whether you would rather be a poor person living in the United States or a poor person living in Uganda, you would probably rather be poor in the US, if only because minor social programs such as food stamps, plus the existence of charitable organizations, increases your expected income as a poor person here).  At the same time, though, a complete disregard for quality of life would doom the economy (remember, capitalists still need consumers to buy their products, so if 90% of consumers are too impoverished to purchase products, domestic economic growth does not actually occur).  The key is to find a balance between the two.