George Bush Junior.
I expect a debt crisis comic book from Marvel now!!!
Saturday, 6 August 2011
The Time Bomb II
The Time Bomb's main villain:
George Bush Junior.
I expect a debt crisis comic book from Marvel now!!!
George Bush Junior.
I expect a debt crisis comic book from Marvel now!!!
Friday, 5 August 2011
Penis Politics
To those of you not familiar with Kristen Schaal, she's the voice of Trixie in Toy Story 3- I love her stand-up comedy, check her out here.
According to her: men are stuck with the age-old misconception that women want to know about your penis, and that seeing it will make them more attractive. They also need to realize that their penis has far more power over them than it does over us women. She says that penises 'look like a species discovered living on the ocean floor undersea sulfur jets.' She claims that Alexander Graham Bell described his own penis as a pink toadstool or 'the head of a one-eyed vulture sitting on a wrinkled beanbag chair'.
Robbin Williams said: 'God gave men both a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time'.
Yet, it is ridiculous to think that men strongly believe that the sign of their pink toadstool will cause women to be overwhelmed with lust.
Al Gore, accused by a masseuse of sexual assault, was quoted saying 'You know you want it!' and was turned on by her resistance.
Then there's Dominique Straus-Kahn. Naked 62-year old with fat belly bursts out of a hotel bathroom and forces his penis into the mouth of a protesting maid who happens to be a Muslim widow half his age, gives him a delusion that convinces him she's loving it although she is screaming no and begging him to stop it.
Hence given the frequent occurrence of such manly behaviour, civilization's stereotypes can be absolutely falsified. It is insisted that women can't be trusted in positions of power as their judgment might be skewed by raging hormones. Yeah absolutely. We're the ones what cannot think straight because of intense sexual desire.
Clinton, Ensign, Schwarznegger, Craig, Spitzer, BERLUSCONI, the list is never ending. So now think of women officials brought down by sexual derangement. (Good Luck, but please don't bother)
Accoring to the New York Times, women politicians work harder than men in terms of participation in debates, introduction of new bills and more speeches. This phenomenon is found worldwide. Mohd Yunus of Grameen Bank, gives out microcredit to women because men splurge on 'alcohol and whores'. He says that if you educate a man, he educates himself, and that when you educate a woman, you educate a whole family.
Excerpt from the Daily Beast:
Charlie Sheen has long prided himself on being a compulsive whoremonger, and one Hollywood madam who supplied him with prostitutes was recently asked by Vanity Fair what Sheen wanted in a woman. “Two tits, a hole and a heartbeat,” she replied.
“Weiner’s job was to make policy, and this is what he thinks of 50 percent of the population?” says Gail Dines, a professor of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College. “Women contact him, and what does he see? Not a constituent who needs health care, safe housing, day care; he sees a fuckable object whose humanity is completely erased. No wonder women and children are suffering. We need government to see us as human beings.”
Do women really have to settle for elected officials who view them the same way?
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Burgernomics (yum)
Toss those complex economic statistics out of the window, burgers have come to rescue us. It was just 25 years ago 'The Economist' decided that the Big Mac index (prices of hamburgers- particularly Big Macs, a common feature in 120 countries) might be a good economic indicator and may be used to compare performance across countries. Economists however have become more and more convinced with the accuracy of this index!
(Please look beyond the burger, the basket of goods involved in the making of a big mac are food, materials, wages and rent, which only slightly differs from the common food, fuel, rent and healthcare)
Today, the burger valuer suggests that euro is overvalued against the other main currencies (Don't buy burgers in Europe!). What does this mean? It highlights the europe's internal problems- Greece Spain, Portugal and Spain have lost competitiveness relative to Germany.
Burgernomics was formulated initially to judge whether a government was overstating or understating its inflation rate. In the case of Argentina, Big Mac prices have risen well above 10 percent points each year than the official Consumer Price Index- one of the biggest gaps than other countries tested.
However, to completely rely on Burgernomics is an error as American politicians use it to compare extremes. Apparently, the Big Mac index proves that the Chinese Yuan is hugely undervalued. Obviously, burgers are cheap in China as well as all emerging economies because:
1. Wages are lower
2. Emerging economies tend to be exporters of agricultural products
According to 'The Economist', if the index is adjusted to GDP per person, it shows that the yuan is now close to its fair value against the dollar. Studies do show that the Big Mac index is close to Purchasing-Power-Parity rates calculated using instrinsic methods.
A problem with conventional official statistics is that they are available after a time lag and might be subject to scrutiny, this explains the popularity of quirky indexes such as the Crane Index (the number of cranes you can see from a given point in a city). Oh Dubai tops the list by the way. And the lipstick index (apparently shopaholic women tend to buy more lipsticks if they can't afford dresses- how would I know??)
Lets welcome unconventional measures. What do you suggest?
My personal experience tell me that loads of crazy stuff get auctioned on ebay when a recession hits.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
The Cold War and Marvel- MARVELOUS!!!
Having finally read the avengers comicbooks while watching the series of Marvel movies (Captain America, X-Men, Hulk, Ironman), I must say I regret thinking that these comic books could wait until I finished by A-Level Cold War course! I was so wrong!!
The Cold War was the continuing state of political conflict post-WWII, primarily between the communists and capitalists. Marvel has it all figured out!
CAPTAIN AMERICA
-surgically altered to look identical to Steve Rogers, fought communists during the early 1950s, including the 'Red Skull'. In other countries, the communist influence began civil wars and revolutions- 1950s was when the Korean War took place.
FANTASTIC FOUR
-The historic rocket trip that made them gain power was a result of the space race.
HULK
-Igor Drenkov, a Russian spy was sent to America to steal weapons and secrets. His actions led to the accidental creation of the Hulk.
In Vietnam, the communist party won the country's power and pitted it under a communist government, but during the war many heroes like Iron man fought against the communist soldiers. In SAN DIABLO another revolution began, but this time, with the help of THOR, the democratic faction won the war and defeated the EXECUTIONER and his army. In China, the revolution changed under a communist government. The Radioactive Man, the Chinese scientist CHEN LU, was stopped by THOR.
I have never read X-MEN FIRST CLASS, instead I watched the film, in my opinion it was a fantastic explanation of the concept of brinkmanship during the Cuban Missile Crisis!!! We now know (Historian Gaddis' favourite line!) that it was Power-absorbing mutant Shaw that ordered Jupiter Missiles to be placed in Turkey, as well as influencing the USSR to place missiles in Cuba. AND- Shaw was depicted to be a Nazi! We know that the commander-in-chief avoided full-blown nuclear because Professor X told him to through telepathy. It was sad though to know the reason detente (easing of tensions) was possible was because the US and the USSR united and had a common enemy- the mutants- when it was essentially Professor X that was the mediator in the whole process.
The description of these events seem to make so much sense, but we have to balance the point of views. Superhero comics are often accused of being thinly veiled male power fantasies (in my case, female power fantasies). I would say the comics of this era were more guilty than most as they featured politically incorrect racial stereotypes that served no other purpose but to serve America's 'strategic' interests. Hitler or fictional Nazi villains would be regularly defeated in the name of freedom, only to return the menace the superhero population again. Fine, maybe it was their form of creative expression and it was not going to sell if it was anti-US.
It is so obvious that Marvel was pro-US (Gosh, who knows it might be the CIA's doing) as superhero comics were happy to dive into the conflicts of WWII and the Cold War, they paid little attention to the Vietnam War (LB Johnson's nightmare). I think it was not the type of conflict that clearly depicted 'good vs evil'. Tony Stark Iron Man's initial story has him injured and taken captive by Wong-chu, an Asian nemesis only less stereotypical than the Japanese villains of the WWII era. So, the Iron Man comics have since updated this origin and shifted Iron Man's debut to the modern Middle East, sound familiar???
Marvel's marvelousness does not end there! Issues after the Cold War was also part of their superheroes' lives: I haven't done enough comic reading yet, but I should soon write about The War on Terror where the superheroes helped in rescue operations, and the question of the nature of freedom and the need for security. Oh and I will definitely post an article related to The Great Recession. Apparently many popular heroes have faced the effects of the recession firsthand. Spiderman the everyman hero- Peter Parker was struggling to make ends meet and Tony Stark Iron Man faced a complete collapse of his company.
I need to get a copy of FEAR ITSELF. 'Spider-Man can't punch a recession' and there are endless Obama inspired comics- I am reading the Obama Amazing Spider-Man issue nowww!!! The comic creators of the 1940s only saw their heroes fighting evil and tyranny whereas now, we need heroes that can occupy much more complicated issues of economics, politics and society.
Looks like I can be a Marvel superhero after all.
The Cold War was the continuing state of political conflict post-WWII, primarily between the communists and capitalists. Marvel has it all figured out!
CAPTAIN AMERICA
-surgically altered to look identical to Steve Rogers, fought communists during the early 1950s, including the 'Red Skull'. In other countries, the communist influence began civil wars and revolutions- 1950s was when the Korean War took place.
FANTASTIC FOUR
-The historic rocket trip that made them gain power was a result of the space race.
HULK
-Igor Drenkov, a Russian spy was sent to America to steal weapons and secrets. His actions led to the accidental creation of the Hulk.
In Vietnam, the communist party won the country's power and pitted it under a communist government, but during the war many heroes like Iron man fought against the communist soldiers. In SAN DIABLO another revolution began, but this time, with the help of THOR, the democratic faction won the war and defeated the EXECUTIONER and his army. In China, the revolution changed under a communist government. The Radioactive Man, the Chinese scientist CHEN LU, was stopped by THOR.
I have never read X-MEN FIRST CLASS, instead I watched the film, in my opinion it was a fantastic explanation of the concept of brinkmanship during the Cuban Missile Crisis!!! We now know (Historian Gaddis' favourite line!) that it was Power-absorbing mutant Shaw that ordered Jupiter Missiles to be placed in Turkey, as well as influencing the USSR to place missiles in Cuba. AND- Shaw was depicted to be a Nazi! We know that the commander-in-chief avoided full-blown nuclear because Professor X told him to through telepathy. It was sad though to know the reason detente (easing of tensions) was possible was because the US and the USSR united and had a common enemy- the mutants- when it was essentially Professor X that was the mediator in the whole process.
The description of these events seem to make so much sense, but we have to balance the point of views. Superhero comics are often accused of being thinly veiled male power fantasies (in my case, female power fantasies). I would say the comics of this era were more guilty than most as they featured politically incorrect racial stereotypes that served no other purpose but to serve America's 'strategic' interests. Hitler or fictional Nazi villains would be regularly defeated in the name of freedom, only to return the menace the superhero population again. Fine, maybe it was their form of creative expression and it was not going to sell if it was anti-US.
It is so obvious that Marvel was pro-US (Gosh, who knows it might be the CIA's doing) as superhero comics were happy to dive into the conflicts of WWII and the Cold War, they paid little attention to the Vietnam War (LB Johnson's nightmare). I think it was not the type of conflict that clearly depicted 'good vs evil'. Tony Stark Iron Man's initial story has him injured and taken captive by Wong-chu, an Asian nemesis only less stereotypical than the Japanese villains of the WWII era. So, the Iron Man comics have since updated this origin and shifted Iron Man's debut to the modern Middle East, sound familiar???
Marvel's marvelousness does not end there! Issues after the Cold War was also part of their superheroes' lives: I haven't done enough comic reading yet, but I should soon write about The War on Terror where the superheroes helped in rescue operations, and the question of the nature of freedom and the need for security. Oh and I will definitely post an article related to The Great Recession. Apparently many popular heroes have faced the effects of the recession firsthand. Spiderman the everyman hero- Peter Parker was struggling to make ends meet and Tony Stark Iron Man faced a complete collapse of his company.
I need to get a copy of FEAR ITSELF. 'Spider-Man can't punch a recession' and there are endless Obama inspired comics- I am reading the Obama Amazing Spider-Man issue nowww!!! The comic creators of the 1940s only saw their heroes fighting evil and tyranny whereas now, we need heroes that can occupy much more complicated issues of economics, politics and society.
Looks like I can be a Marvel superhero after all.
The Time Bomb
I wasn't planning to write about the issues with America's debt. Initially I wanted to tell you how excited I got about this book: Losing Control-The Emerging Threats to Western Prosperity by Stephen King (No not THE novelist). Anyway I figured I was not in a position to write a good article as I am only halfway through it. However I would like to note that the author mainly points to the emerging BRICs, and the nature of the West's early developments. (I am so excited I have to remind myself to stop rambling about the book and promise I'd write about it later..)
So I stumbled upon an article, again by Greg Mankiw (Sorry I am obsessed) titled 'It's 2026 and the Debt Is Due', The New York Times, March 27 2011.
This is how he starts off:
The following is a presidential address to the nation- to be delivered in March 2026
The article tells us the obvious: Americans have been living (way) beyond their means. With all their brilliant economists and mathematicians, they have not faced the reality of the concept of budget balancing. Essentially, they have both low taxes albeit a generous social safety net. Honestly, it's not hard to figure out why Europe, specifically Scandinavian countries have fantastic social services- HIGH TAX RATES.
The winners are:
Belgium- 54%
Finland- 46.6%
Germany- 45%
*Note: The figures mean __% highest marginal tax rate on average income
Guess what, America's is *Drum Roll*
Anyways, the time bomb originates from previous generations by those with, unmistakably noble aims. Social Security was created as poverty was seen among the elderly. Medicare and Midicaid were to rescue the sick. Americans struggled to afford health insurance so they embraced reform with subsidies for middle-class families. As seen from the above tax rates it is fact that this expansion was costly and Government spending has taken up a fair share of national income. Reality is that the baby-boom generation has become eligible for the many government benefits. (No we should not overwork them like the Japanese do) The main problem in healthcare was the rapid technological advances- though highly desirable, they are expensive essentially. Back in 2008 when I was tuned in the Presidential Elections and Obama was so passionately promoting Healthcare reform, I knew it was going to haunt him. I wanted to tell him, but who cares about a 16 year old kid's pessimism.
In my opinion, if the Americans were sensible enough to tax for these spendings, there would not be a time bomb. But anyway, they simply subscribed to textbook economics. (I know there are many of you who've memorized them)
1. Taxes distort incentives (we love free market, don't we)
2. Taxes reduce economic growth
3. Taxes have high administrative costs
4. Bla bla bla Laffer Curve, regressive, progressive, etc
So, what do we do instead? BORROWWWWW!
Debt does not avoid hard choices. It is the matter of time (Remember the classic economic argument for interest rates? TIME among risk and inflation) Debt only delays the hardship. Borrowing=Bonds. For years the US government borrowed on good terms, investors were confident and thought in due time, spending and taxes would be in line. However, the ratio of the US' debt to GDP product has been at a record high, naturally investors would be nervous. ahaa! RISK. If your investments were risky and a lot of uncertainty was involved, you would demand higher interest rates. Not only has their debt accumulated but servicing the loan has become even more expensive.
This is the cycle:
Rising budget deficits --> Lower investor confidence --> Higher cost of borrowing --> Back to square 1!
An interesting excerpt from the article:
As economist often remind us, crises take longer to arrive than you think, but they happen much faster than you could have imagined. Last week, when the Treasury tried to auction its most recent issue of government bonds, almost no one was buying. The private market will lend us no more. Our national credit card has been rejected.
The solution, as structured by Greg Mankiw:
1. Social Security has to be cut immediately, especially for higher income earners and it should be a tool that will still narrowly keep the elderly out of poverty.
2. Health care should be limited to basic healthcare, not expensive treatments.
3. The concept of healthcare as a right of citizenship is flawed: citizens have a responsibility upon their health!
4. Raise taxes on all but the poorest Americans by broadening the tax base, eliminating deductions for mortgage interest.
5. Raise taxes on fuel. This addresses climate change and local traffic congestion and perhaps they can get in shape and be responsible for their health.
The question is: How many people actually look into the future and take into consideration or even understand the needs of the future generation? Who is willing to give up their social security for a group of people we will never meet (this strictly excludes family)?
Would I? Erm. Thinking.
So I stumbled upon an article, again by Greg Mankiw (Sorry I am obsessed) titled 'It's 2026 and the Debt Is Due', The New York Times, March 27 2011.
This is how he starts off:
The following is a presidential address to the nation- to be delivered in March 2026
The article tells us the obvious: Americans have been living (way) beyond their means. With all their brilliant economists and mathematicians, they have not faced the reality of the concept of budget balancing. Essentially, they have both low taxes albeit a generous social safety net. Honestly, it's not hard to figure out why Europe, specifically Scandinavian countries have fantastic social services- HIGH TAX RATES.
The winners are:
Belgium- 54%
Finland- 46.6%
Germany- 45%
*Note: The figures mean __% highest marginal tax rate on average income
Guess what, America's is *Drum Roll*
Anyways, the time bomb originates from previous generations by those with, unmistakably noble aims. Social Security was created as poverty was seen among the elderly. Medicare and Midicaid were to rescue the sick. Americans struggled to afford health insurance so they embraced reform with subsidies for middle-class families. As seen from the above tax rates it is fact that this expansion was costly and Government spending has taken up a fair share of national income. Reality is that the baby-boom generation has become eligible for the many government benefits. (No we should not overwork them like the Japanese do) The main problem in healthcare was the rapid technological advances- though highly desirable, they are expensive essentially. Back in 2008 when I was tuned in the Presidential Elections and Obama was so passionately promoting Healthcare reform, I knew it was going to haunt him. I wanted to tell him, but who cares about a 16 year old kid's pessimism.
In my opinion, if the Americans were sensible enough to tax for these spendings, there would not be a time bomb. But anyway, they simply subscribed to textbook economics. (I know there are many of you who've memorized them)
1. Taxes distort incentives (we love free market, don't we)
2. Taxes reduce economic growth
3. Taxes have high administrative costs
4. Bla bla bla Laffer Curve, regressive, progressive, etc
So, what do we do instead? BORROWWWWW!
Debt does not avoid hard choices. It is the matter of time (Remember the classic economic argument for interest rates? TIME among risk and inflation) Debt only delays the hardship. Borrowing=Bonds. For years the US government borrowed on good terms, investors were confident and thought in due time, spending and taxes would be in line. However, the ratio of the US' debt to GDP product has been at a record high, naturally investors would be nervous. ahaa! RISK. If your investments were risky and a lot of uncertainty was involved, you would demand higher interest rates. Not only has their debt accumulated but servicing the loan has become even more expensive.
This is the cycle:
Rising budget deficits --> Lower investor confidence --> Higher cost of borrowing --> Back to square 1!
An interesting excerpt from the article:
As economist often remind us, crises take longer to arrive than you think, but they happen much faster than you could have imagined. Last week, when the Treasury tried to auction its most recent issue of government bonds, almost no one was buying. The private market will lend us no more. Our national credit card has been rejected.
The solution, as structured by Greg Mankiw:
1. Social Security has to be cut immediately, especially for higher income earners and it should be a tool that will still narrowly keep the elderly out of poverty.
2. Health care should be limited to basic healthcare, not expensive treatments.
3. The concept of healthcare as a right of citizenship is flawed: citizens have a responsibility upon their health!
4. Raise taxes on all but the poorest Americans by broadening the tax base, eliminating deductions for mortgage interest.
5. Raise taxes on fuel. This addresses climate change and local traffic congestion and perhaps they can get in shape and be responsible for their health.
The question is: How many people actually look into the future and take into consideration or even understand the needs of the future generation? Who is willing to give up their social security for a group of people we will never meet (this strictly excludes family)?
Would I? Erm. Thinking.
Unemployment and Its Discontents (OMG I SOUND SO STIGLITZ)
I was just reading Greg Mankiw's article in The New York Times (May 7, 2011) and I was curious about his blatant confession that though he had devoted most of his life to the business cycle-peaks and troughs- there are still many confronting questions he fails to answer. In his article, he highlights 3, but I am only focusing on this one as many factors serve to complicate this issue. (Or perhaps I just like unemployment stuff)
1. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR THE ECONOMY'S WOUNDS TO HEAL?
Obama took office at such a depressing time and he had little choice but to act immediately to solve the financial crisis. Excerpts from Mankiw's article:
The administration’s first official forecast said economic growth, computed
from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, would average 3.5 percent in 2010
and 4.4 percent in 2011. Unemployment was supposed to fall to 7.7 percent
by the end of 2010 and to 6.8 percent by the end of 2011.
However, growth was only 2.8 percent in 2010, unemployment is well above 7.7 and is not expected to change much!
Now the blame game- aren't Obama's economists competent enough, or was it that the situation was far worse than expected.
The main focus here is thus unemployment and basic economic theory tells us that unemployment and growth are interrelated and is one of the most prominent statistic to use when evaluating economic performance, hence the over-subscribed sometimes misunderstood term 'GDP'.
A quick look on unemployment- average duration is now almost 40 weeks (twice more than previous recessions) while the long-term unemployed may well lose job skills and find their future opportunities severed. But everything is so uncertain! That reminds me of an article from The Economist, July 26th- 'Long-term unemployment is a sticky situation'
According to the author, this employer behaviour is rational as firms are likely to see long-term unemployment as a useful signal of worker quality. Naturally, I would side the workers, hence I have built a case for them:
1. People who were laid off recently, maybe worse candidates than people who were laid off ages ago!! This is because people who have been out of work two years are longer were actually laid off during the peak of the recession, rather than incompetent workers who were fired when the economy was recovering, or in simple non-economic terms, has recovered.
2. Furthermore, layofffs are less common as there has been some job growth. People laid off in the last few months must've lost their jobs because they were incompetent, rather than being victims of the business cycle.
3. On the point of diminishing competitiveness and skill, but most lower-skilled jobs, or jobs of lesser technologies (is that even a right term to use?!) this is an irrelevant concern.
4. And according to Catherine Rampell of the NY Times:
If we are going to discriminate against workers because they're unemployed especially in the long-run, we should take the time to figure out whether the statusquo even relates to worker quality!!!
Oh yeah, did I mention I was pro government intervention? This is a clear failing of the 'market forces' of demand and supply for labour. We can chuck the whole chapter of 'Labour Economics' in my A-Level textbook out of the window. =D
1. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR THE ECONOMY'S WOUNDS TO HEAL?
Obama took office at such a depressing time and he had little choice but to act immediately to solve the financial crisis. Excerpts from Mankiw's article:
The administration’s first official forecast said economic growth, computed
from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, would average 3.5 percent in 2010
and 4.4 percent in 2011. Unemployment was supposed to fall to 7.7 percent
by the end of 2010 and to 6.8 percent by the end of 2011.
However, growth was only 2.8 percent in 2010, unemployment is well above 7.7 and is not expected to change much!
Now the blame game- aren't Obama's economists competent enough, or was it that the situation was far worse than expected.
The main focus here is thus unemployment and basic economic theory tells us that unemployment and growth are interrelated and is one of the most prominent statistic to use when evaluating economic performance, hence the over-subscribed sometimes misunderstood term 'GDP'.
A quick look on unemployment- average duration is now almost 40 weeks (twice more than previous recessions) while the long-term unemployed may well lose job skills and find their future opportunities severed. But everything is so uncertain! That reminds me of an article from The Economist, July 26th- 'Long-term unemployment is a sticky situation'
"A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer”) only people currently employed or just recently laid off.
The practice is common enough that New Jersey recently passed a law outlawing job ads that bar unemployed workers from applying. New York and Michigan are considering the idea, and similar legislation has been introduced in Congress. The National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit organization that studies the labor market and helps the unemployed apply for benefits, has been reviewing the issue, and last week issued a report that has nudged more politicians to condemn these ads.
Given that the average duration of unemployment today is nine months — a record high — limiting a search to the “recently employed,” much less the currently employed, disqualifies millions."
According to the author, this employer behaviour is rational as firms are likely to see long-term unemployment as a useful signal of worker quality. Naturally, I would side the workers, hence I have built a case for them:
1. People who were laid off recently, maybe worse candidates than people who were laid off ages ago!! This is because people who have been out of work two years are longer were actually laid off during the peak of the recession, rather than incompetent workers who were fired when the economy was recovering, or in simple non-economic terms, has recovered.
2. Furthermore, layofffs are less common as there has been some job growth. People laid off in the last few months must've lost their jobs because they were incompetent, rather than being victims of the business cycle.
3. On the point of diminishing competitiveness and skill, but most lower-skilled jobs, or jobs of lesser technologies (is that even a right term to use?!) this is an irrelevant concern.
4. And according to Catherine Rampell of the NY Times:
If we are going to discriminate against workers because they're unemployed especially in the long-run, we should take the time to figure out whether the statusquo even relates to worker quality!!!
Oh yeah, did I mention I was pro government intervention? This is a clear failing of the 'market forces' of demand and supply for labour. We can chuck the whole chapter of 'Labour Economics' in my A-Level textbook out of the window. =D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)