Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, was one of the most recognizable and influential proponents of liberty and markets in the 20th century, and the leader of the Chicago School of economics.
In this video from the grand opening of the Cato Institutes’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. in 1993, Milton Friedman gives a talk about popular political aphorisms, one of his favorites being the one he helped popularize in the title of his 1975 book, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
View full post on Libertarianism.org
Fortunately for us,franklin marshall, and things have changed now. Recently published a list on a website popularity (and also two magazines) with all possible government job vacancies for the next year. There was one part that was interesting in particular – the list of government jobs in the state of Andhra Pradesh in 2012. And this list is especially remarkable because,mercurial vapor pas cher, despite being a small country such as this,abercrombie paris, there are already more than 1000 vacancies in various government sectors in the state of Andhra Pradesh and the number of vacancies is going to get doubled in the next year,hogan!
Competition from private sector companies: Until very recently there were not many multinational companies in India too,abercrombie, after the business units of their own in this country. Over the past 10 years, may come at least 4,mercurial vapor,000 different companies to India (and not just because the workforce cheap here, but also because there is talent big in the country),supra shoes, and they are always familiar for people who have got what it takes to make it a bit. This has caused full employment scenario to change abruptly. He joined a large number of people already have these companies in various positions and still more waiting to join.
It is because of the invasion of multinational companies in India,outlet hogan, the Indians did not need to rely entirely on the functions of the government of India to earn a living. Very soon there were very few people left to fill vacancies in various departments of Govt. When the government decided when I realized what the problem is,franklin and marshall, to change his view and do something to attract Indian talent back to the functions of the Indian government. Corrective measure, the Indian government decided to invest in natural resources deployed in this country and create local jobs. Strategy seemed to work and we are glad you did.
There seems to be a sudden increase in the number of the functions of the Indian government in all parts of the country. The labor market scenario in India never really that good. It is only after taking a few corrective measures that the government was able to create many jobs.
Check the list of the latest government jobs and India also check out the list in the state of Andhra Pradesh government and the functions and start the application at this time.
Let us try to take a look at why things changed so suddenly:
The biggest problem with the functions of the government of India is that all vacancies there seem to be in and around the state of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh and a couple of other northern states. There are very few vacancies in other parts of the country. The reason behind this is that the northern part of India has the best infrastructure (suitable for industries),abercrombie france, as well as natural resources. So, whenever a candidate gets selected from any other part of the country,abercrombie, and he is bound to move to the northern states,supra!
The number of defraud case in Internet is keep increasing. Build up a fake bank website, send out an email to ask for password. Before take any action, try to verify it is real or not. You can phone to bank hotline to ask, go to the bank to contact directly.
Statistics: Posted by 5m1d8u9h3 — Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:28 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
3.6 Million Taxpayer Dollars Being Used To Support The Lavish Lifestyles Of Former Presidents Such As Bush And Clinton
You are not going to believe how much money is being spent on our former presidents. At a time when U.S. government spending is wildly out of control, a total of 3.6 million dollars is being used to support the lavish lifestyles of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton in 2012. For 2013, the plan is to increase that amount to 3.7 million dollars. But do any of them really need this kind of welfare? The truth is that all of them are very wealthy. So what justification is there for giving them so much money? You can see the GSA budget proposal for former presidents for 2013 right here. The 3.7 million dollars for 2013 does not even include the cost of Secret Service protection. Rather, it only covers expenses such as office rentals, travel, phone bills, postage, printing and pension benefits. Certainly it is not unreasonable to grant former presidents a small pension, but should we be showering them with millions of dollars each year? At a time when the federal government is drowning in so much debt, the fact that these former presidents are willing to take such huge amounts of taxpayer money really does make them look like parasites.
So why are these former presidents getting this money?
Congress passed The Former Presidents Act of 1958 because they didn’t want other presidents to end up as poor as Harry Truman did.
Well, these days former presidents are definitely not in danger of ending up poor. But this law does enable former presidents to stick the U.S. taxpayer with some absolutely outrageous bills.
For example, George W. Bush is scheduled to get $1,356,000 from U.S. taxpayers in 2013.
$85,000 of that will be for phone expenses.
He must have a really, really bad calling plan.
Bill Clinton is scheduled to get $1,019,000 from U.S. taxpayers in 2013.
A whopping $442,000 of that will be for office space.
That breaks down to more than $36,000 a month.
I hope that office space is nice.
Perhaps he needs a lot of office space to hide from Hillary.
George H.W. Bush is scheduled to get $879,000 from U.S. taxpayers in 2013.
$63,000 of that total will be going toward “equipment”.
How many iPads does he really need?
Even the old peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter, will be getting $518,000 from U.S. taxpayers in 2013.
But do they even need this money?
Exactly how wealthy are these former presidents?
Well, it turns out that they are very, very wealthy.
George W. Bush earned an estimated $15 million in speaking fees during just the first two years after he left office.
So why are we spending millions to support these guys?
Perhaps this is yet another question that we don’t have an answer to. We can add it to the list….
-Why do chimps throw poop?
The federal government has spent $592,527 to try to find the answer.
-Do unhappy people spend more time on Twitter or on Facebook?
The federal government has spent $198,000 in an attempt to get an answer.
-How do rats respond to jazz music when they are high on cocaine?
Your tax dollars are being spent to get to the bottom of it.
-Does cocaine cause Japanese quail to engage in sexually risky behavior?
The federal government has spent $175,587 to find out the truth.
Right now there are more than 100 million working age Americans that do not have jobs, and this is the kind of nonsense that the federal government is spending money on.
Shame on these former presidents for taking this money.
If our Congress critters are looking for a place to cut the federal budget, this would be a good place to start.
View full post on The Economic Collapse
If This Is Such a Strong Economy, Why Does This Chart Look Recessionary?
March 2, 2012
Is the U.S. really a post-oil economy?
One way to gauge the real economy is to look at charts of the GDP, wages, household debt and the price of oil; another way is to correlate all of these on one chart. The following chart (courtesy of frequent contributor B.C.) plots these four metrics thusly: GDP/(wages/household debt)/price of oil.
What pops out of the chart is what happens when oil spikes higher or declines. In 1973, the first oil shock sent the economy off a cliff. Conversely, when oil fell to $12/barrel in the late 1990s while wages were rising strongly, the plotline peaked, reflecting a strong economy.
In 2008, oil spiked to $140/barrel in 2008, household debt reached record heights and wages began stagnating, and the economy fell into a sharp recession. When oil plummeted back to $40/barrel in early 2009, the plotline spiked up.
When oil prices and household debt are high while wages stagnate or decline, the economy sinks to recessionary levels.
Here are B.C.’s observations:
This chart utterly discredits the economics profession and those who claim that the post-industrial economy ("deindustrialization" and "financialization") is not oil-constrained and the service economy is what the rest of the world should adopt as the normative standard at $100+/barrel oil.
The current plotline is hovering just above the recessionary levels of late 2008. Does this reflect a strong economy, or one that is weak? If oil keeps climbing, what will that do to a visibly weak economy?
The Bulls are convinced that the U.S. has decoupled from the rest of the world and from the price of oil. This chart makes the opposite case: the price of oil matters, especially when wages are declining and household debt is elevated.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:04 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com