In my opinion, no free lunch means you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. If i do this favor for your, you will owe one. One hand washes the other....
More information
Simply that almost nothing in this world is actually free - even if you don't pay for it somebody else does - and the cost is likely to reflect on yourself sooner or later: Someone pays your lunch and expects a favor in return, a salesman pays your dinner and increases the price of his goods, the government offers unemployment benefits and increases your taxes.
Everything has to be paid for somehow, it is only a matter of how the cost is distributed.
It relates to the notion that government aid programs (like those that provide free food) are paid for by taxpayers.
In my opinion, no free lunch means you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. If i do this favor for your, you will owe one. One hand washes the other....More informationSimply that almost nothing in this world is actually free - even if you don't pay for it somebody else does - and the cost is likely to reflect on yourself sooner or later: Someone pays your lunch and expects a favor in return, a salesman pays your dinner and increases the price of his goods, the government offers unemployment benefits and increases your taxes.Everything has to be paid for somehow, it is only a matter of how the cost is distributed.
Correct. In other words, nothing in this world is free. Say if you were taken to lunch by your boss, and he paid then even though you had a free lunch, the meal still cost money.
Economists say that competitive markets are efficient because when there is competition prices are lower. The more available an item, the less it will cost the consumer.
Partly free market and partly regulated
When economists say that people act rationally in their self interest they mean that
It relates to the notion that government aid programs (like those that provide free food) are paid for by taxpayers.
In my opinion, no free lunch means you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. If i do this favor for your, you will owe one. One hand washes the other....More informationSimply that almost nothing in this world is actually free - even if you don't pay for it somebody else does - and the cost is likely to reflect on yourself sooner or later: Someone pays your lunch and expects a favor in return, a salesman pays your dinner and increases the price of his goods, the government offers unemployment benefits and increases your taxes.Everything has to be paid for somehow, it is only a matter of how the cost is distributed.
Correct. In other words, nothing in this world is free. Say if you were taken to lunch by your boss, and he paid then even though you had a free lunch, the meal still cost money.
When economists say that people act rationally in their self interest they mean that
Why don't you just say that? Or you could say, 'I can stay for lunch but I only have forty-five minutes free, will that be too much of a rush?'
You can, but it is not idiomatic English. If you mean that people worked straight through their lunch time, use No one took lunch
You can, but it is not idiomatic English. If you mean that people worked straight through their lunch time, use No one took lunch
In Tamil, you can say "மதிப்பீடுக்காக மடியில் செல்லுவது" (Madhippeetukkaaga maṭiyil selluvadhu) to mean "going for lunch."
You say "had lunch"
Why are they not truly free? no such thing as a free lunch. This is a very lame attempt at bait and switch!
Have a lunch.