The Fed's Job-Creation Efforts Are Being Thwarted - Barrons.com
Art Laffer also makes clear that the Federal Government (and its raising of taxes and coddling of unions) in the 1930's was also a major (if not 'the major') cause of the ongoing depression.
I guess if you think there is no consequence of union work rules (which raise the cost of doing business), you can favor Obama and liberal policies.
But one really has to quote Mark Twain if you believe such falsehoods - ""It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Geithner: Debt-Ceiling Debate Is 'Irresponsible' - WSJ.com
SANITY - IS GOLD TELLING US SOMETHING?:
Geithner: Debt-Ceiling Debate Is 'Irresponsible' - WSJ.com
Let's see?
Lots of stimulus and 2% projected 1st quarter GDP growth. It certainly seems as though the 'bread-on-the-table' is showing that Obama (Geitner) economic policies are missing something.
It is scary to see how out-of-touch the White House and its advisors seem to be. When government takes productive resources and gives them to the non-productive, something has to give. The White House and the media seem to be in denial.
Liberals seem to think any generous entitlement or union extortion is justified and that the society will just have to bear-up and all will be well.
The fate of the automakers and state budgets would seem to evidence an opposite conclusion.
For liberals, the private sector doesn't matter and only government knows what is best. Sadly, those who aren't government wonks and might help to grow the economy know better. As for those who feed on government largess, well, they don't want to think they are doing any harm.
While there is some turbulence in the markets, it is clear that huge sums of money are being borrowed and spent to keep a very leaky economy and economic policy 'appearing' to move ahead.
The more the media ignores basic economics, the greater the foreboding. (It seems all too reminiscent of the ignorance of most European Jews to Hitler in the 1930's.)
As for the Republicans, they are hamstrung by being in bed with the Christian mullahs.
If any major part of the above is moderately accurate, the rise in gold prices is a touch of sanity.
Geithner: Debt-Ceiling Debate Is 'Irresponsible' - WSJ.com
Let's see?
Lots of stimulus and 2% projected 1st quarter GDP growth. It certainly seems as though the 'bread-on-the-table' is showing that Obama (Geitner) economic policies are missing something.
It is scary to see how out-of-touch the White House and its advisors seem to be. When government takes productive resources and gives them to the non-productive, something has to give. The White House and the media seem to be in denial.
Liberals seem to think any generous entitlement or union extortion is justified and that the society will just have to bear-up and all will be well.
The fate of the automakers and state budgets would seem to evidence an opposite conclusion.
For liberals, the private sector doesn't matter and only government knows what is best. Sadly, those who aren't government wonks and might help to grow the economy know better. As for those who feed on government largess, well, they don't want to think they are doing any harm.
While there is some turbulence in the markets, it is clear that huge sums of money are being borrowed and spent to keep a very leaky economy and economic policy 'appearing' to move ahead.
The more the media ignores basic economics, the greater the foreboding. (It seems all too reminiscent of the ignorance of most European Jews to Hitler in the 1930's.)
As for the Republicans, they are hamstrung by being in bed with the Christian mullahs.
If any major part of the above is moderately accurate, the rise in gold prices is a touch of sanity.
Battle Over Debt Ceiling Heats Up - Barrons.com
IS THERE A BUDGET OR DOES THE GOVERNMENT JUST SPEND TO SUPPORT ENTITLEMENTS?: Battle Over Debt Ceiling Heats Up - Barrons.com
Something else to be considered for evaluation is the comparison of the amount of stimulus being thrown into 2011 by the government (start with the social security tax waiver) and look at how the economy is doing (last forecast was 2% growth in the first quarter).
It would seem reasonable to have the electorate made aware of the fact that the relationship between stimulus and growth with decent fiscal policies should be on the side of much more growth.
As it is, Obama and his cohorts seem to be given a pass on their policies - but, should they be?
From everything I've read, going above 20% (or 19%) of GDP in Fed taxes is always deleterious to the economy.
We're above that now. The Democrats want us to stay there. The globally competitive tech sector is still competitive - but, doesn't the rest of the economy feel like the 1970's under one of those other great stewards of the economy - Jimmy Carter?
Gold is also suggesting that faith in Obama, et al isn't very supportive of economic stability and growth.
The whole argument on the budget and deficit would seem akin to the family where the husband (or wife) says we can't afford it and the other spouse says "we gotta have it". Sadly, Obama and liberals just believe everything they want to give away should be - ignoring (like the spending spouse) the impact on the credit rung up on the family's credit cards.
Something else to be considered for evaluation is the comparison of the amount of stimulus being thrown into 2011 by the government (start with the social security tax waiver) and look at how the economy is doing (last forecast was 2% growth in the first quarter).
It would seem reasonable to have the electorate made aware of the fact that the relationship between stimulus and growth with decent fiscal policies should be on the side of much more growth.
As it is, Obama and his cohorts seem to be given a pass on their policies - but, should they be?
From everything I've read, going above 20% (or 19%) of GDP in Fed taxes is always deleterious to the economy.
We're above that now. The Democrats want us to stay there. The globally competitive tech sector is still competitive - but, doesn't the rest of the economy feel like the 1970's under one of those other great stewards of the economy - Jimmy Carter?
Gold is also suggesting that faith in Obama, et al isn't very supportive of economic stability and growth.
The whole argument on the budget and deficit would seem akin to the family where the husband (or wife) says we can't afford it and the other spouse says "we gotta have it". Sadly, Obama and liberals just believe everything they want to give away should be - ignoring (like the spending spouse) the impact on the credit rung up on the family's credit cards.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Dollar's Slide Accelerates - WSJ.com
OBAMA KEEPS SHOWING HOW LITTLE HE KNOWS ABOUT THE ECONOMY: Dollar's Slide Accelerates - WSJ.com
Another factor working against Mr. Obama is the understanding and evidence (almost daily) that he really doesn't know what he is doing - in particular with respect to the economy.
It is hard to find examples of governments or states where overspending and overtaxing haven't hurt the economy or economic growth over time. (see yesterday's Wall Street Journal article on California, for example, or the ongoing articles on Greece and Portugal, etc.).
Individuals and governments realize that Mr. Obama and his party have no realistic solution for the lending bubble with which they are trying to mask the problems in the economy.
The US economy is developing into a two-tier economy where the educated have low unemployment and are demanding higher and higher salaries (see this week's WSJ article on pay at Microsoft); public unions are still way overpaid and over-benefited; and, the government's approach to providing jobs for the unskilled includes trying to deny the two-tier economy while driving down the value of the dollar to compete with Asia (and, who here benefits? As the article says, the tech companies that don't really employ many unskilled), etc., etc.
Clearly the Fed will have to be printing money come July or interest rates will rise. And, like any banker watching the financial condition of its borrowers, the world sees a borrower in Obama and the Democrats that is more akin to the family that can't contain its spending and has its credit cards maxed out.
Another factor working against Mr. Obama is the understanding and evidence (almost daily) that he really doesn't know what he is doing - in particular with respect to the economy.
It is hard to find examples of governments or states where overspending and overtaxing haven't hurt the economy or economic growth over time. (see yesterday's Wall Street Journal article on California, for example, or the ongoing articles on Greece and Portugal, etc.).
Individuals and governments realize that Mr. Obama and his party have no realistic solution for the lending bubble with which they are trying to mask the problems in the economy.
The US economy is developing into a two-tier economy where the educated have low unemployment and are demanding higher and higher salaries (see this week's WSJ article on pay at Microsoft); public unions are still way overpaid and over-benefited; and, the government's approach to providing jobs for the unskilled includes trying to deny the two-tier economy while driving down the value of the dollar to compete with Asia (and, who here benefits? As the article says, the tech companies that don't really employ many unskilled), etc., etc.
Clearly the Fed will have to be printing money come July or interest rates will rise. And, like any banker watching the financial condition of its borrowers, the world sees a borrower in Obama and the Democrats that is more akin to the family that can't contain its spending and has its credit cards maxed out.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Sound and Fury - Barrons.com
who'd-a-believed: Sound and Fury - Barrons.com
Sadly, the Democrats rather fit the saying "who'd-a-believed?". In other words, who'd-a-believed when you give away the store that the store ends up empty (or, as Michigan found out with too many unions and too many taxes, who'd-a-believed that businesses would leave?).
Not to let the religious right of the Republicans off the hook either because they were of the bent that who'd-a-believed that if you preach hate and religious prescription that suddenly the immigration wall they want drives businesses to locate out of the US, etc.
And a question of the moment would seem to hang on who-will-believe that the US can really reign in entitlement spending?
(To wit, I've yet to read in the press the question in response to keeping Medicare in its current form, as wished by Mr. Obama, anyone ask whether history shows that bureaucrats actually make more progress than the private sector? Medicare is healthcare from the late 1960's. Private insurance has tried to survive mandates and added taxes to come up with options (too few because of legislation). Medicare clearly needs reform and the last big chance to do that with the Obama-Pelosi axis showed that government really doesn't have the heart to do it.)
Sadly, the Democrats rather fit the saying "who'd-a-believed?". In other words, who'd-a-believed when you give away the store that the store ends up empty (or, as Michigan found out with too many unions and too many taxes, who'd-a-believed that businesses would leave?).
Not to let the religious right of the Republicans off the hook either because they were of the bent that who'd-a-believed that if you preach hate and religious prescription that suddenly the immigration wall they want drives businesses to locate out of the US, etc.
And a question of the moment would seem to hang on who-will-believe that the US can really reign in entitlement spending?
(To wit, I've yet to read in the press the question in response to keeping Medicare in its current form, as wished by Mr. Obama, anyone ask whether history shows that bureaucrats actually make more progress than the private sector? Medicare is healthcare from the late 1960's. Private insurance has tried to survive mandates and added taxes to come up with options (too few because of legislation). Medicare clearly needs reform and the last big chance to do that with the Obama-Pelosi axis showed that government really doesn't have the heart to do it.)
Thursday, April 14, 2011
U.S. Says Iran Helps Crackdown in Syria - WSJ.com
MULLAHS OF ANY PERSUASION: U.S. Says Iran Helps Crackdown in Syria - WSJ.com
The way in which the Christian mullahs in the Republican party brought their religious abortion politics into the most recent budget debate shows clearly how 'dangerous' mullahs are (of any religious affiliation).
And, to think both parties seem to think we can cut a defense budget when the mullahs are on the offensive makes no sense.
Mullahs only want to get 'their way'. They don't negotiate and they don't accept any middle ground.
The way in which the Christian mullahs in the Republican party brought their religious abortion politics into the most recent budget debate shows clearly how 'dangerous' mullahs are (of any religious affiliation).
And, to think both parties seem to think we can cut a defense budget when the mullahs are on the offensive makes no sense.
Mullahs only want to get 'their way'. They don't negotiate and they don't accept any middle ground.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Austerity Alone is Not the Perfect Cure - WSJ.com
PORTUGAL: Austerity Alone is Not the Perfect Cure - WSJ.com
It would seem as though several good points were raised vis-a-vis Portugal - i.e. with respect to raising the education level.
What was unsaid was the need to encourage entrepreneurship (social taxes in particular are too high) and to make the country more attractive to business.
All of this talk about austerity and raising taxes omits the rather clear evidence that high tax countries and states (the US is replete with examples plus those like the Democrats who want to ignore the implications of high taxes) will lose business to countries with a more business-friendly environment.
Obama may talk about a change in attitude to business but the facts would appear to be contradictory. There is no serious talk about cutting the government's share of GDP and either through borrowing or taxing business and entrepreneurs or investors, the Dems want to exact higher taxes to keep the government's share of GDP too high.
In the US the Republicans seem unable to deal with those in their party that are anti-immigrant and those with a religious agenda (America's own mullahs - see the Planned Parenthood issue in recent budget talks).
It would interesting to see talk in Portugal about a commission to encourage policy changes to support small business and investment into Portugal. Since this would take on too many vested interests - of course, it is omitted.
And perhaps, this is always the tug-of-war between those who feel entitled and those who are asked to pay for those entitlements. All of which is, of course, taking place without the presentation of plans in Portugal to have a real set of alternatives to the contents of the current article (i.e. austerity and no growth and hoping to get by with as few changes as possible).
It would seem as though several good points were raised vis-a-vis Portugal - i.e. with respect to raising the education level.
What was unsaid was the need to encourage entrepreneurship (social taxes in particular are too high) and to make the country more attractive to business.
All of this talk about austerity and raising taxes omits the rather clear evidence that high tax countries and states (the US is replete with examples plus those like the Democrats who want to ignore the implications of high taxes) will lose business to countries with a more business-friendly environment.
Obama may talk about a change in attitude to business but the facts would appear to be contradictory. There is no serious talk about cutting the government's share of GDP and either through borrowing or taxing business and entrepreneurs or investors, the Dems want to exact higher taxes to keep the government's share of GDP too high.
In the US the Republicans seem unable to deal with those in their party that are anti-immigrant and those with a religious agenda (America's own mullahs - see the Planned Parenthood issue in recent budget talks).
It would interesting to see talk in Portugal about a commission to encourage policy changes to support small business and investment into Portugal. Since this would take on too many vested interests - of course, it is omitted.
And perhaps, this is always the tug-of-war between those who feel entitled and those who are asked to pay for those entitlements. All of which is, of course, taking place without the presentation of plans in Portugal to have a real set of alternatives to the contents of the current article (i.e. austerity and no growth and hoping to get by with as few changes as possible).
Sunday, April 3, 2011
An Important View on Inflation and Policy
"
John Cochrane’s Unpleasant Fiscal Arithmetic
Mar. 15 2011 - 4:47 pm | 1,914 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
U. Chicago Booth School professor John Cochrane.
Today’s big economic questions are paradoxical and confusing. Deflation? Or wild inflation? A dearth of demand? Or way too much spending? The proposed answers don’t differ by shades of gray. They are binary opposites.
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane sees through the fog. Value the nation’s fiscal picture like a stock, and then integrate it with monetary policy. The result – which says the real value of nominal government debt equals the present value of future primary surpluses – is a new lens on an unprecedented combination of unorthodox Federal Reserve action and Treasury expansion.
Referring to the successful hedge fund that sponsors his Booth School academic post and his eager MBA students seeking work there, Cochrane playfully amends his title to “The (I-can’t-get-you-a-job-at) AQR Capital Management Professor of Finance.” The irony is that if Washington spent a little more time listening to him, many more Americans would have jobs.
Cochrane’s new model, published in the January European Economic Review, explains why the booming monetary base has not yet, to the consternation of many hawks, produced a proportional measured inflation. Yet Cochrane also shows how the inflationary “tipping point . . . can come quickly and unpredictably . . . without strong ‘demand’ and small ‘gaps’.” In other words, inflation has little to do with fully utilized industrial capacity or tight labor markets. Inflation is a change in the value of money based on the expected interplay of government finance, central bank credibility, and economic growth. And $100-oil and $1,400-gold could of course be the first rumblings.
Milton Friedman taught us that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” But what if fiscal policy is driving the monetary bus? Budget crises in the states, $10 trillion in new U.S. debt over the next 10 years, and another $80 trillion (or so) in unfunded liabilities create enormous incentives to inflate.
Beyond its management of the panic, however, many of the Fed’s extraordinary actions have had seemingly modest effect. More than $1 trillion in excess bank reserves sit idly on its balance sheet. QE2 and its exotic monetary siblings are causing wild swings in commodities and international markets, but the Fed’s preferred measures of domestic inflation remain tame – too tame, even, for its own liking. When will Washington figure out the chief limiter on employment and growth is not a too-shy monetary policy?
Cochrane’s bigger concern with QE2 is term structure. The Fed is shortening the maturity of U.S. debt when just the opposite is called for. The financial crisis should have reminded us about the dangers of short term debt. You may think you are solvent, but if you can’t roll over your debt, you are not. Long term debt, on the other hand, acts as a shock absorber. You may pay a bit extra, but you will not go bust. With rates so low, why not lock them in for 30 years?
Cochrane is the author of a bible of finance called Asset Pricing but in recent times has been piercing the pieties of macroeconomics.
When everyone else complains of China’s supposed currency manipulation and its big purchases of U.S. debt, Cochrane retorts: “The right policy is flowers and chocolates, or at least a polite thank you note.”
On the Dodd-Frank financial reform: “This law isn’t really law. It’s just a piece of paper that tells people to write regulations.” There’s “no definition of what is not systemic.” By contrast, “I have a view of what ‘systemic’ means: run-prone contracts with externalities.”
When John Cassidy of the New Yorker asked, “If you were hired as head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, what would you tell the President?” Cochrane didn’t hesitate: “I’d get fired in about five minutes. I’d start with a broad deregulatory approach to health care reform. There, I just got fired.”
Surely, Cochrane must agree with the conventional wisdom on the euro, that more central harmonization is key. Wrong again. “A currency union,” he wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “is strongest without a fiscal union.”
This is fundamental. A currency union prevents individual members from devaluing to gain (illusory) advantage. With devaluation off the table, they must abide fiscal reality. A true fiscal federation, likewise, prevents a central authority from harmful taxation and profligate spending and thus reduces its incentive to inflate. The fiscally decentralized United States, under the common dollar of Alexander Hamilton, operated under these classic checks and balances for many prosperous decades. More recently, Washington’s fiscal and monetary activism, beyond its own shortcomings, loosened fiscal restraints on the states. Hello, Illinois and California.
Today’s Europe has big problems, and the euro currency takes much of the heat. But among other virtues, the euro has exposed unsustainable anti-growth fiscal and regulatory practices of its member nations. If Europe can manage its way through the immediate trouble, the euro could prove the turning point for a new, more economically vibrant continent.
And this is the ultimate lesson distilled from Cochrane’s equations. It is the rate of economic growth – indeed, the expected rate – that is paramount. “The present value of future tax revenues is what matters,” Cochrane writes. And although the exact shape of the Laffer Curve can never be known, Cochrane takes it seriously. A “high marginal tax and interventionist policy which stunts growth can be particularly dangerous for setting off a fiscal inflation.” Government actions that reduce the prospective growth rate by just 0.3%, he estimates, would put us at the “fiscal limit” of monetary policy today.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Cochrane’s new work in finance confirms the centrality of expected growth. Once upon a time, we thought dividends drove the market. But Cochrane finds that cash flow variation accounts for approximately zero percent of market variation. In fact, changes in discount rate expectations account for about 100% of variation across most securities and markets.
Inflation is a government’s attempt to bail out itself. Former Obama CEA chairwoman Christina Romer, writing in the New York Times, now advises an even larger and more explicit dollar devaluation. Governments would be wiser to bail out themselves – and everyone else – through private growth.
John Cochrane’s Unpleasant Fiscal Arithmetic
Mar. 15 2011 - 4:47 pm | 1,914 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
U. Chicago Booth School professor John Cochrane.
Today’s big economic questions are paradoxical and confusing. Deflation? Or wild inflation? A dearth of demand? Or way too much spending? The proposed answers don’t differ by shades of gray. They are binary opposites.
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane sees through the fog. Value the nation’s fiscal picture like a stock, and then integrate it with monetary policy. The result – which says the real value of nominal government debt equals the present value of future primary surpluses – is a new lens on an unprecedented combination of unorthodox Federal Reserve action and Treasury expansion.
Referring to the successful hedge fund that sponsors his Booth School academic post and his eager MBA students seeking work there, Cochrane playfully amends his title to “The (I-can’t-get-you-a-job-at) AQR Capital Management Professor of Finance.” The irony is that if Washington spent a little more time listening to him, many more Americans would have jobs.
Cochrane’s new model, published in the January European Economic Review, explains why the booming monetary base has not yet, to the consternation of many hawks, produced a proportional measured inflation. Yet Cochrane also shows how the inflationary “tipping point . . . can come quickly and unpredictably . . . without strong ‘demand’ and small ‘gaps’.” In other words, inflation has little to do with fully utilized industrial capacity or tight labor markets. Inflation is a change in the value of money based on the expected interplay of government finance, central bank credibility, and economic growth. And $100-oil and $1,400-gold could of course be the first rumblings.
Milton Friedman taught us that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” But what if fiscal policy is driving the monetary bus? Budget crises in the states, $10 trillion in new U.S. debt over the next 10 years, and another $80 trillion (or so) in unfunded liabilities create enormous incentives to inflate.
Beyond its management of the panic, however, many of the Fed’s extraordinary actions have had seemingly modest effect. More than $1 trillion in excess bank reserves sit idly on its balance sheet. QE2 and its exotic monetary siblings are causing wild swings in commodities and international markets, but the Fed’s preferred measures of domestic inflation remain tame – too tame, even, for its own liking. When will Washington figure out the chief limiter on employment and growth is not a too-shy monetary policy?
Cochrane’s bigger concern with QE2 is term structure. The Fed is shortening the maturity of U.S. debt when just the opposite is called for. The financial crisis should have reminded us about the dangers of short term debt. You may think you are solvent, but if you can’t roll over your debt, you are not. Long term debt, on the other hand, acts as a shock absorber. You may pay a bit extra, but you will not go bust. With rates so low, why not lock them in for 30 years?
Cochrane is the author of a bible of finance called Asset Pricing but in recent times has been piercing the pieties of macroeconomics.
When everyone else complains of China’s supposed currency manipulation and its big purchases of U.S. debt, Cochrane retorts: “The right policy is flowers and chocolates, or at least a polite thank you note.”
On the Dodd-Frank financial reform: “This law isn’t really law. It’s just a piece of paper that tells people to write regulations.” There’s “no definition of what is not systemic.” By contrast, “I have a view of what ‘systemic’ means: run-prone contracts with externalities.”
When John Cassidy of the New Yorker asked, “If you were hired as head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, what would you tell the President?” Cochrane didn’t hesitate: “I’d get fired in about five minutes. I’d start with a broad deregulatory approach to health care reform. There, I just got fired.”
Surely, Cochrane must agree with the conventional wisdom on the euro, that more central harmonization is key. Wrong again. “A currency union,” he wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “is strongest without a fiscal union.”
This is fundamental. A currency union prevents individual members from devaluing to gain (illusory) advantage. With devaluation off the table, they must abide fiscal reality. A true fiscal federation, likewise, prevents a central authority from harmful taxation and profligate spending and thus reduces its incentive to inflate. The fiscally decentralized United States, under the common dollar of Alexander Hamilton, operated under these classic checks and balances for many prosperous decades. More recently, Washington’s fiscal and monetary activism, beyond its own shortcomings, loosened fiscal restraints on the states. Hello, Illinois and California.
Today’s Europe has big problems, and the euro currency takes much of the heat. But among other virtues, the euro has exposed unsustainable anti-growth fiscal and regulatory practices of its member nations. If Europe can manage its way through the immediate trouble, the euro could prove the turning point for a new, more economically vibrant continent.
And this is the ultimate lesson distilled from Cochrane’s equations. It is the rate of economic growth – indeed, the expected rate – that is paramount. “The present value of future tax revenues is what matters,” Cochrane writes. And although the exact shape of the Laffer Curve can never be known, Cochrane takes it seriously. A “high marginal tax and interventionist policy which stunts growth can be particularly dangerous for setting off a fiscal inflation.” Government actions that reduce the prospective growth rate by just 0.3%, he estimates, would put us at the “fiscal limit” of monetary policy today.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Cochrane’s new work in finance confirms the centrality of expected growth. Once upon a time, we thought dividends drove the market. But Cochrane finds that cash flow variation accounts for approximately zero percent of market variation. In fact, changes in discount rate expectations account for about 100% of variation across most securities and markets.
Inflation is a government’s attempt to bail out itself. Former Obama CEA chairwoman Christina Romer, writing in the New York Times, now advises an even larger and more explicit dollar devaluation. Governments would be wiser to bail out themselves – and everyone else – through private growth.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Review & Outlook: Jobs and Wages - WSJ.com
Q&A: Review & Outlook: Jobs and Wages - WSJ.com
Question:
Wages have been stagnant for YEARS, hello!
Stop the H1 VISAs! Bill Gates and Clinton I'm looking at you bozos! There are plenty of qualified people here!
Answer:
Sadly you may think so, but by erecting the barriers those against immigration want, the jobs of the future are being located outside of the US.
Example: Do you want to have a global R&D effort? If yes, then you better locate away from the US.
Example: Do you want to have the businesses of the future located in the US as they have been over the last few decades? Well, then you better let those super bright, ambitious, highly educated and entrepreneurial foreigners have a right to stay in the US after they've been educated and gotten all those PhDs.
Etc.
Question:
Wages have been stagnant for YEARS, hello!
Stop the H1 VISAs! Bill Gates and Clinton I'm looking at you bozos! There are plenty of qualified people here!
Answer:
Sadly you may think so, but by erecting the barriers those against immigration want, the jobs of the future are being located outside of the US.
Example: Do you want to have a global R&D effort? If yes, then you better locate away from the US.
Example: Do you want to have the businesses of the future located in the US as they have been over the last few decades? Well, then you better let those super bright, ambitious, highly educated and entrepreneurial foreigners have a right to stay in the US after they've been educated and gotten all those PhDs.
Etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
