Reagan had it right in 1980, because he knew some economic truths.
He knew that in an open global marketplace, when net exports are significantly and persistently negative, there is high leakage by definition, which means a relatively low multiplier for additional secondary/tertiary economic activity. Being able to put two and two together correctly, he also knew then that demand-side stimulus would be a waste, simply putting additional dollars in the pockets of foreign industries. He knew that supply-side investment was the better approach, because it would drive GDP growth and that other factors of the economy (like job growth) would follow.
History proved he was right.
But Obama doesn't seem to be able to make the connection. Not only does he continue to spend trillions of dollars in ineffective supply-side stimulus and government programs, he's putting the nation in deeper and deeper debt to do so, compounding the problem.
History is already beginning to prove just how wrong he is.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Don't Let Workplace Discrimination Go Unanswered
I also learned this (second-hand) from a friend.
Sometimes a recruiter accepts (verbally is OK, in writing is better) that you are qualified for submission for a given position based on your phone interviews, references, etc. But then, after asking you in to the agency for the "formality" of a face-to-face meeting, refuses to submit you.
This could actually be submitted as prima facie evidence of discrimination based on membership in a protected class (race, age, color, etc.) if it applies -- especially if your membership in such a class would only be evident in a face-to-face setting.
This isn't legal advice. I'm not a lawyer (and neither is my friend). But if I was to run into such a situation, I would certainly seek advice from a competent attorney.
My opinion remains that people have to stand up to abusive employers and government agencies, even if that means some personal inconvenience and sacrifice. People have to be able to work for society to function. The old adage stands: if you're not part of the solution, you're just another part of the problem.
Sometimes a recruiter accepts (verbally is OK, in writing is better) that you are qualified for submission for a given position based on your phone interviews, references, etc. But then, after asking you in to the agency for the "formality" of a face-to-face meeting, refuses to submit you.
This could actually be submitted as prima facie evidence of discrimination based on membership in a protected class (race, age, color, etc.) if it applies -- especially if your membership in such a class would only be evident in a face-to-face setting.
This isn't legal advice. I'm not a lawyer (and neither is my friend). But if I was to run into such a situation, I would certainly seek advice from a competent attorney.
My opinion remains that people have to stand up to abusive employers and government agencies, even if that means some personal inconvenience and sacrifice. People have to be able to work for society to function. The old adage stands: if you're not part of the solution, you're just another part of the problem.
Pre-employment Screening Madness
Pre-employment screening at Scripps Health is a perfect storm of violations of candidates' privacy and dignity. Why would anyone willingly discard their self-respect to work there?
Reportedly, pre-employment screening at Scripps Health includes:
- a background check
- a credit check
- testing for "drugs", controlled substances and alcohol
- proof of immunization records
- and a chest X-Ray
Get this: all for a temporary position in information technology. Not working in the hospital. Not interacting with patients or health care providers. For sitting in a cubicle writing software.
If you care about privacy and the right to work, speak out. Let them (and any abusive employer) know that it's not acceptable. Scripps Health contact information is here: http://www.scripps.org/about-us__contact-us
Sunday, April 29, 2012
USA and Pakistan - Interesting Relationsihp
The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is interesting (read: insane).
On one hand, we know that Pakistan harbors domestic and foreign terrorists, as well as serving as an extensive R&R base for the Taliban in Afghanistan. So, we ignore their sovereignty and carry out drone strikes that enrage Pakistan's citizens -- after we promised not to do that anymore (http://on.msnbc.com/JJZShY). As a direct consequence, even freely-offered humanitarian aid is met with brutality by anti-West militant extremists (http://on.msnbc.com/IBL3Zc) and the government of Pakistan turns a blind eye.
Yet, on the other had, we continue to provide Pakistan with jobs (Pakistan is a major recipient of American jobs shipped offshore.), foreign aid and the very weapons that they will eventually use to kill Americans (http://bit.ly/IvwVWJ).
Regardless of who is in the Executive Office, it seems as if American foreign policy just keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. Well, that's my take, anyway.
On one hand, we know that Pakistan harbors domestic and foreign terrorists, as well as serving as an extensive R&R base for the Taliban in Afghanistan. So, we ignore their sovereignty and carry out drone strikes that enrage Pakistan's citizens -- after we promised not to do that anymore (http://on.msnbc.com/JJZShY). As a direct consequence, even freely-offered humanitarian aid is met with brutality by anti-West militant extremists (http://on.msnbc.com/IBL3Zc) and the government of Pakistan turns a blind eye.
Yet, on the other had, we continue to provide Pakistan with jobs (Pakistan is a major recipient of American jobs shipped offshore.), foreign aid and the very weapons that they will eventually use to kill Americans (http://bit.ly/IvwVWJ).
Regardless of who is in the Executive Office, it seems as if American foreign policy just keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. Well, that's my take, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)