4/10/2013
TOP PERFORMERS NEVER WORK FOR A COMPANY
Read entire article:
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130409130222-7668018-top-performers-never-work-for-a-company?trk=mta-lnk
HOW TO BE HONEST AND RESPECTFUL WITH A JERK
For the complete article:
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130409161417-36052017-how-to-be-honest-and-respectful-with-a-jerk?trk=li_tw_0413_fredkofman_jerks&sf11484623=1
“What a stupid idea!” your mind screams as you listen to your colleague. “It will never work.”
How can you be honest and respectful at this moment?
Saying, “That´s a stupid idea,” is disrespectful.
Saying, “That’s an interesting idea,” is dishonest.
When you are offered two equally bad alternatives, choose a third.
Grow up
My three-year old wouldn´t eat broccoli.
Me: “Why don´t you like it, Michi?”
My daughter: “Because it’s yucky!”
Me: “But I like broccoli.”
My daughter: “Why do you like yucky things, daddy?”
Michelle thinks she doesn´t like broccoli because it’s yucky. But broccoli is not yucky. She calls it “yucky” because she doesn´t like it. When you are three, this is cute. When you are forty-three, it’s dangerous.
Many people have forty years of experience in being three.
Jean Piaget studied how human beings grow up. He tested children through a block painted green on one side and red on the other. Facing the child, he held the block between them with the green side pointed toward him and the red side pointed toward the child. When he asked, “What color do you see?” the child always answered, “red.” Then Piaget asked, “What color do I see?”
Most children younger than 5 years old answered, “red.” They were incapable of recognizing that other would see something different from them. Older children gave the correct answer. They understood that while they saw red, Piaget saw green. They demonstrated a sense of perspective, the ability to appreciate another’s point of view. Many so-called grownups have never developed this skill.
An adult child never questions his perspective. He’s right, and whoever disagrees with him is wrong. It’s his way or the highway. If he doesn´t like broccoli, it is because broccoli, as a matter of fact, is yucky!
Before you accuse me
When was the last time you met an idiot who thought exactly like you? Do you believe he disagrees with you because he’s an idiot? Or do you call him “idiot” because he disagrees with you?
No idea is stupid. “Stupid” is an arrogant opinion, an unskillful way of expressing that you don´t like the idea. Maybe you don´t understand it, maybe you have contradictory evidence, or maybe it derails a cherished plan. Whatever the reason, you can be sure that its proponent does not think the idea is stupid.
The opposite of arrogance is humility (from the Latin “humus,” meaning ground.) A humble person does not place himself above others; he does not pretend to hold a privileged position. Humility is the acknowledgment that you do not have a special claim on reality or truth, that others have equally valid perspectives deserving respect and consideration.
There are many ways to look at the world, and each way has its bright and its blind spots. Only humility can integrate diverse perspectives into an inclusive view. Humility makes sense intellectually, but it is not our natural attitude. It requires, at least, the cognitive development of a six-year-old.
Safe Language, Dangerous Language
Arrogant opinions are expressed as objective facts. That is, in the second (you), third (he, she, it), and plural (we, you all, they) persons. They intrude into the mental space of your counterpart. I call them “dangerous” because they come across as aggressive, trigger defensiveness and create conflict.
“You are wrong!”
“This is crazy!”
“It´s a mistake!”
“We need to move on!”
“You shouldn´t do it!”
Notice the difference with,
“I disagree.”
“I don´t understand.”
“I am afraid of the consequences.”
“I feel impatient.”
“I would prefer you not do it.”
Humble opinions are expressed as subjective interpretations. That is, in the first person (I). They respect your counterpart’s mind. I call them “safe” because they come across as constructive, invite dialogue and set the stage to resolve conflict.
When stakes are high, we are prone to use dangerous language. It is precisely in these conversations where safe language is most needed.
I worked with a product development manager who was very upset with his boss. “She doesn´t understand!” he complained. “We must take action now or we’ll miss our window. She is so closed, she doesn´t want to listen to reason.”
I challenged him, “I don´t know what she thinks or how she is, but if you told me that I don´t understand and we must take action now, otherwise I am closed and don´t want to listen to reason, I would consider you an arrogant jerk who is using strong-arm tactics to intimidate me into doing something that doesn´t feel right to me.”
She is not closed, he is not a jerk; they are both struggling to grow up.
In a previous post, I argued that you must prove you are listening. But listening is not enough. Effective communication demands that you speak respectfully as well.
Do you express your opinions in “I” or “you” form? Let me know below.
Fred Kofman, PhD. in Economics, is Professor of Leadership and Coaching at the Conscious Business Center of the University Francisco Marroquín and a faculty member of Lean In. He is the author of Conscious Business, How to Build Value Through Values (also available as an audio program).
Photo: Tatiana Gladskikh/123RF
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130409161417-36052017-how-to-be-honest-and-respectful-with-a-jerk?trk=li_tw_0413_fredkofman_jerks&sf11484623=1
“What a stupid idea!” your mind screams as you listen to your colleague. “It will never work.”
How can you be honest and respectful at this moment?
Saying, “That´s a stupid idea,” is disrespectful.
Saying, “That’s an interesting idea,” is dishonest.
When you are offered two equally bad alternatives, choose a third.
Grow up
My three-year old wouldn´t eat broccoli.
Me: “Why don´t you like it, Michi?”
My daughter: “Because it’s yucky!”
Me: “But I like broccoli.”
My daughter: “Why do you like yucky things, daddy?”
Michelle thinks she doesn´t like broccoli because it’s yucky. But broccoli is not yucky. She calls it “yucky” because she doesn´t like it. When you are three, this is cute. When you are forty-three, it’s dangerous.
Many people have forty years of experience in being three.
Jean Piaget studied how human beings grow up. He tested children through a block painted green on one side and red on the other. Facing the child, he held the block between them with the green side pointed toward him and the red side pointed toward the child. When he asked, “What color do you see?” the child always answered, “red.” Then Piaget asked, “What color do I see?”
Most children younger than 5 years old answered, “red.” They were incapable of recognizing that other would see something different from them. Older children gave the correct answer. They understood that while they saw red, Piaget saw green. They demonstrated a sense of perspective, the ability to appreciate another’s point of view. Many so-called grownups have never developed this skill.
An adult child never questions his perspective. He’s right, and whoever disagrees with him is wrong. It’s his way or the highway. If he doesn´t like broccoli, it is because broccoli, as a matter of fact, is yucky!
Before you accuse me
When was the last time you met an idiot who thought exactly like you? Do you believe he disagrees with you because he’s an idiot? Or do you call him “idiot” because he disagrees with you?
No idea is stupid. “Stupid” is an arrogant opinion, an unskillful way of expressing that you don´t like the idea. Maybe you don´t understand it, maybe you have contradictory evidence, or maybe it derails a cherished plan. Whatever the reason, you can be sure that its proponent does not think the idea is stupid.
The opposite of arrogance is humility (from the Latin “humus,” meaning ground.) A humble person does not place himself above others; he does not pretend to hold a privileged position. Humility is the acknowledgment that you do not have a special claim on reality or truth, that others have equally valid perspectives deserving respect and consideration.
There are many ways to look at the world, and each way has its bright and its blind spots. Only humility can integrate diverse perspectives into an inclusive view. Humility makes sense intellectually, but it is not our natural attitude. It requires, at least, the cognitive development of a six-year-old.
Safe Language, Dangerous Language
Arrogant opinions are expressed as objective facts. That is, in the second (you), third (he, she, it), and plural (we, you all, they) persons. They intrude into the mental space of your counterpart. I call them “dangerous” because they come across as aggressive, trigger defensiveness and create conflict.
“You are wrong!”
“This is crazy!”
“It´s a mistake!”
“We need to move on!”
“You shouldn´t do it!”
Notice the difference with,
“I disagree.”
“I don´t understand.”
“I am afraid of the consequences.”
“I feel impatient.”
“I would prefer you not do it.”
Humble opinions are expressed as subjective interpretations. That is, in the first person (I). They respect your counterpart’s mind. I call them “safe” because they come across as constructive, invite dialogue and set the stage to resolve conflict.
When stakes are high, we are prone to use dangerous language. It is precisely in these conversations where safe language is most needed.
I worked with a product development manager who was very upset with his boss. “She doesn´t understand!” he complained. “We must take action now or we’ll miss our window. She is so closed, she doesn´t want to listen to reason.”
I challenged him, “I don´t know what she thinks or how she is, but if you told me that I don´t understand and we must take action now, otherwise I am closed and don´t want to listen to reason, I would consider you an arrogant jerk who is using strong-arm tactics to intimidate me into doing something that doesn´t feel right to me.”
She is not closed, he is not a jerk; they are both struggling to grow up.
In a previous post, I argued that you must prove you are listening. But listening is not enough. Effective communication demands that you speak respectfully as well.
Do you express your opinions in “I” or “you” form? Let me know below.
We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.” Anais Nin
Fred Kofman, PhD. in Economics, is Professor of Leadership and Coaching at the Conscious Business Center of the University Francisco Marroquín and a faculty member of Lean In. He is the author of Conscious Business, How to Build Value Through Values (also available as an audio program).Photo: Tatiana Gladskikh/123RF
4/07/2013
THE CASE FOR NOT CODDLING CHILDREN
Parenting: Hands-On VS. Digital
Nick recently sold his news-reading app, Summly, to Yahoo for a price reported to be in the tens of milli dollars. Nick's mother and father apparently had no special
knowledge of technology but nurtured their son's early interest in it.While money doesn't signify a lifetime of good parenting, it reduces the urgency of the question of what Nick will doto make a living.
This is not the case for almost every other young person entering the work world. "There is increasingly no such thing as a high-wage, middle-skilled job - the thing that sustained the middle class in the last generation,''
The Times's Thomas Friedman wrote recently. "Now there is only a high-wage , high-skilled job. "Every middle-class job today either requires more skill or can be done by more people around the world or is being made obsolete faster, Mr. Friedman wrote. Tony Wagner, a Harvard University education special ist, told Mr. Friedman that parents and educators need to prepare their children not to be "college ready" but "innovation ready."
Young people who can handle life's ups and downs will no doubt fare better, and there is no shortage of advice for parents on how to produce them.
Reports say that texting instead of nurturing may not only lead to tod dler tantrums but could also affect a child's health. "Our personal histories of social connection or loneliness, for instance, alter how our genes are expressed within the cells of our immune
Some,like The Times's Frank Bruni, are
baffled by the
"boundless fretting" of
parents, "as if ushering kids
into adulthood were some newfangled sorcery dependent on a slew
of child-rear ing
books and a bevy of child-rearing blogs." Mr. Bruni thinks the
modern
parent's habit
of giving too much weight to
their children's demands
is a negative. "Parents forget: in the political realm you don't get a say until
you're 18.
There's a
reason for that.
PETER CATAPANO
New York Times
April 7, 2013
New York Times
April 7, 2013
1/16/2013
OBAMA GUNS PLAN MEETS FAST RESISTANCE
President Barak Obama delivered a comprehensive guns control message on TV today.
It will require the same strength of purpose to receive Congressional approval as did his Affordable Care Act Healthcare plan.
Read:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-gun-control-plan-is-announced-86280.html
By REID J. EPSTEIN and
JENNIFER EPSTEIN |
1/16/13
Politico
12/26/2012
A NEW MEANING TO THE TERM ‘ FREE MARKET ‘
Taxpayers also victims of ‘hot money’ behind Canada’s condo bubbles
The condo bubbles in Toronto and Vancouver are caused by foreign speculation and are making housing unaffordable and creating financial risk for the country in terms of government-insured mortgages. But there’s another issue of vital concern to taxpayers.
There are three times more condo high-rises being built in Toronto than in New York City and seven times’ more than in Chicago. This boom is not the market at work, but is manipulation by “hot money” from abroad.
“I have come across something that I find astonishing, and which amounts to systemic tax fraud by investors, mostly foreign, on a massive scale,” wrote an investor involved in the industry.
He explained how it works:
1. Foreigners sign an agreement of purchase for a condo unit, or for 50 at a time, and put down a 5% deposit. This buys a right to buy the unit in future at a fixed price. In financial markets, this is known as a derivative.
2. Many developers include in the agreement of purchase the right to “assign” this right to buy at a fixed price. In financial markets, this is called creating a futures market. This assignment of a right to buy at a fixed price turns buyers into speculators (unless they want to move in or rent out the unit) who are set up to flip the units for a profit as prices are pushed upwards.
The Australians were victims of the same shenanigans and shut it down and now Canada must too
3. Some developers, and intermediaries, are in the business of helping speculators flip their rights and pocket a fee for doing so. For instance, Mr. X from Asia pays $15,000 for the right to buy a $300,000 condo, then, when the price of similar units rise to $400,000, he can assign the right, get his deposit back and make the $100,000 difference. There is a frenzy of this speculation going on which makes prices escalate so rights can be bought and resold over and over again before a building is completed.
4. The paperwork for these agreements is kept in-house and my source said one intermediary told him that there are no T-5s issued to the speculator or to the Canada Revenue Agency, something that stock and futures market intermediaries must do so that taxes can be paid on the $100,000 trading profits. Instead, the profits vanish, possibly along with the paperwork, and taxes paid will be by the end user if they buy, rent out the unit and make a capital gain down the road.
“[Condo] brokers tell me I can flip my assignment and pay no tax and there is no paper trail. They say we do it all day long,” said the investor who asked to remain anonymous.
Under CRA rules, foreigners making Canadian-sourced income are fully taxable by the federal and provincial governments. In Ontario or BC, the total tax bill would be 46% or $46,000 in tax for $100,000 profit.
The unpaid taxes could be staggering, said a real estate agent. In Toronto, 20,000 condo units have been sold each year for the past five years. Let’s assume one-quarter were sold to foreign speculators who flipped the assignment and made $100,000 profit without paying taxes. Their Canadian-sourced income would total $500 million a year, and they would owe 46% of that in taxes or $230 million.
Most condo developers may not be involved in this game, but a few – notably developers with Asian and Middle East owners or backers and buildings located in downtown areas – certainly are.
So this is what must happen. As I argued last week, Ottawa must forbid the purchase by foreigners of any residences in Canada as Australia did in 2010 after foreign speculation and tax evasion damaged its housing market.
The Canada Revenue Agency should send in auditors to the lawyers and intermediaries and developers who have the lists of those who signed agreements of purchase. If they did not close on those deals, and the deals sold for more money than the agreements, then auditors must work backwards and assess income taxes.
The Ontario and other securities commissions should get involved because what is happening, if these reports hold true, is that an unregulated financial futures market is being created using and abusing Canadian residential properties as vehicles. Likewise, the federal and provincial government tax collectors should get involved.
If speculators who owe taxes are long gone – many of them are offshore funds that buy out entire buildings then sell units abroad – then the intermediaries and developers should pay the taxes.
This frenzy is forcing prices upwards. Meanwhile, condos in the suburbs often take months to sell because buyers want them as homes, not as convenient money machines to flip.
The investor who described the tax shenanigans took his information to several politicians and called the CRA hotline, but got nowhere. Tax officials said they needed specific names and addresses to investigate, but this is beyond a simple case. This requires a task force to look into this.
A realtor said ordinary foreigners are buying from “funds” that are bundling units in Toronto and promising huge returns.
“Foreigners have been lured into so-called investment products, property units, with promises of high yields,” wrote this real estate professional. “They are often small investors who go to property seminars overseas. Many of these buildings do not allow Canadians to buy these units, obviously because of the tax implications.”
The Australians were victims of the same shenanigans and shut it down and now Canada must too.
Posted in: Diane Francis Tags: condos, Housing bubbles
The condo bubbles in Toronto and Vancouver are caused by foreign speculation and are making housing unaffordable and creating financial risk for the country in terms of government-insured mortgages. But there’s another issue of vital concern to taxpayers.
There are three times more condo high-rises being built in Toronto than in New York City and seven times’ more than in Chicago. This boom is not the market at work, but is manipulation by “hot money” from abroad.
“I have come across something that I find astonishing, and which amounts to systemic tax fraud by investors, mostly foreign, on a massive scale,” wrote an investor involved in the industry.
He explained how it works:
1. Foreigners sign an agreement of purchase for a condo unit, or for 50 at a time, and put down a 5% deposit. This buys a right to buy the unit in future at a fixed price. In financial markets, this is known as a derivative.
2. Many developers include in the agreement of purchase the right to “assign” this right to buy at a fixed price. In financial markets, this is called creating a futures market. This assignment of a right to buy at a fixed price turns buyers into speculators (unless they want to move in or rent out the unit) who are set up to flip the units for a profit as prices are pushed upwards.
The Australians were victims of the same shenanigans and shut it down and now Canada must too
3. Some developers, and intermediaries, are in the business of helping speculators flip their rights and pocket a fee for doing so. For instance, Mr. X from Asia pays $15,000 for the right to buy a $300,000 condo, then, when the price of similar units rise to $400,000, he can assign the right, get his deposit back and make the $100,000 difference. There is a frenzy of this speculation going on which makes prices escalate so rights can be bought and resold over and over again before a building is completed.
4. The paperwork for these agreements is kept in-house and my source said one intermediary told him that there are no T-5s issued to the speculator or to the Canada Revenue Agency, something that stock and futures market intermediaries must do so that taxes can be paid on the $100,000 trading profits. Instead, the profits vanish, possibly along with the paperwork, and taxes paid will be by the end user if they buy, rent out the unit and make a capital gain down the road.
“[Condo] brokers tell me I can flip my assignment and pay no tax and there is no paper trail. They say we do it all day long,” said the investor who asked to remain anonymous.
Under CRA rules, foreigners making Canadian-sourced income are fully taxable by the federal and provincial governments. In Ontario or BC, the total tax bill would be 46% or $46,000 in tax for $100,000 profit.
The unpaid taxes could be staggering, said a real estate agent. In Toronto, 20,000 condo units have been sold each year for the past five years. Let’s assume one-quarter were sold to foreign speculators who flipped the assignment and made $100,000 profit without paying taxes. Their Canadian-sourced income would total $500 million a year, and they would owe 46% of that in taxes or $230 million.
Most condo developers may not be involved in this game, but a few – notably developers with Asian and Middle East owners or backers and buildings located in downtown areas – certainly are.
So this is what must happen. As I argued last week, Ottawa must forbid the purchase by foreigners of any residences in Canada as Australia did in 2010 after foreign speculation and tax evasion damaged its housing market.
The Canada Revenue Agency should send in auditors to the lawyers and intermediaries and developers who have the lists of those who signed agreements of purchase. If they did not close on those deals, and the deals sold for more money than the agreements, then auditors must work backwards and assess income taxes.
The Ontario and other securities commissions should get involved because what is happening, if these reports hold true, is that an unregulated financial futures market is being created using and abusing Canadian residential properties as vehicles. Likewise, the federal and provincial government tax collectors should get involved.
If speculators who owe taxes are long gone – many of them are offshore funds that buy out entire buildings then sell units abroad – then the intermediaries and developers should pay the taxes.
This frenzy is forcing prices upwards. Meanwhile, condos in the suburbs often take months to sell because buyers want them as homes, not as convenient money machines to flip.
The investor who described the tax shenanigans took his information to several politicians and called the CRA hotline, but got nowhere. Tax officials said they needed specific names and addresses to investigate, but this is beyond a simple case. This requires a task force to look into this.
A realtor said ordinary foreigners are buying from “funds” that are bundling units in Toronto and promising huge returns.
“Foreigners have been lured into so-called investment products, property units, with promises of high yields,” wrote this real estate professional. “They are often small investors who go to property seminars overseas. Many of these buildings do not allow Canadians to buy these units, obviously because of the tax implications.”
The Australians were victims of the same shenanigans and shut it down and now Canada must too.
Posted in: Diane Francis Tags: condos, Housing bubbles
9/11/2012
THE GOP'S WILL TO FANTASY - 'DON'T LET THE FACTS OR THE TRUTH GET IN THE WAY'
The GOP's Will to Fantasy
Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate is the latest episode in a story of conflict within the Republican Party that has many chapters. It has been said a thousand times that, in the long competition between the party’s radical base and its slightly less radical leadership, the choice of the extreme budget-cutter Ryan represents a shift toward the base, and that is certainly true. But it is also a development in another, related story.
The record of the last decade or so suggests that the GOP these days is animated by two main goals. First, it seeks unchallengeable, absolute power. Its modus operandi for achieving that goal has been to use institutional power—of corporations, the courts and legislatures—to acquire even more institutional power. A recent case in point is the drive in Republican-dominated states around the country to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as the poor and minorities, by legislating onerous requirements for voting.
The other goal has been a less familiar one. More and more, Republicans have exhibited a strong desire to take up residence in an imaginary world, an alternate reality—one in which global warming is found to be a fraud perpetrated by the world’s top scientists, Obama turns out to be a Kenyan-born Muslim (and a socialist), budgets can be slashed without social pain, firing government employees reduces unemployment, tax cuts for the wealthy replenish government coffers, and so forth. Perhaps it seems odd to identify this retreat from reality as a political goal, but past ideological movements on the left as well as the right offer many examples of the power of such a longing.
Conscientious fact-checkers in the media have rebutted individual items that make up the GOP’s factitious universe. Such efforts are always worthwhile but are likely to backfire with the believers. Once they have been lured away from reality by ideology, fantasy is no longer a disadvantage for them; rather, it is the source of the appeal. The deceptions are popular not in spite of their untruthfulness but precisely because of it. When the target of the insurrection is not only some hated rival or establishment but the factual universe, with all its unwelcome restrictions and psychological burdens, then the more flagrant the violation of truth, the keener the thrill.
Often, the will to power and the will to fantasy go together. As the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century discovered, the two can reinforce each other. Such seemed to be the explicit ambition of a top Bush adviser when, at the height of the Iraq War, he famously said that the administration had delivered a coup de grâce to nothing less than “the reality-based community,” for “we’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” It was a classic statement of the totalitarian logic of the propaganda artist in power. What better way to win support for propaganda than to abolish the reality that contradicts it? The adviser’s boast was premature, but his logic was clear: If we don’t like the real world, we can do away with it.
Those dreams of omnipotence expired in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the conflict between the will to power and the will to fantasy lived on in new forms. The career of Sarah Palin offers an illustration. She and reality were strangers, as the world saw in her interviews. Her mind was almost a blank slate, and she showed neither inclination nor aptitude to remedy the lack. To draw her into that world was a kind of cruel mistake. She soon withdrew from it, deciding, after protracted dithering, to stay out of this year’s presidential race and retreat into a world in which her talents and temperament were in fact stellar: the world of mythmaking and spin on Fox News. It is entirely in keeping with this choice that her husband, Todd Palin, has now turned up in NBC’s militarized “reality” show, Stars Earn Stripes.
There was a lesson in Sarah Palin’s withdrawal. For all the triumphs of cash-fueled political manipulation, the sphere of policy and governmental decisions has its dangers for the addicts of unreality. Fantasies can be a path to power, but they can also become a costly self-indulgence.
Palin’s balking at reality’s edge was only one of many twists and turns in the winding path the GOP has followed between power and fantasy. Sometimes it has tipped one way, sometimes the other. Twice—in the presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012—the party hearkened for a time to the siren call of the unreal world of its base (Mike Huckabee in 2008; Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich this year) before veering away to enter, with conspicuous distaste, into an arranged marriage with the more sober choice (John McCain in 2008, Romney this year).
But now comes the choice of Ryan. It is a decided—possibly a decisive—tip in the direction of fantasy. To be sure, Paul Ryan is no Sarah Palin. He is a veritable policy wonk, but also an ideologue. Ideologues can know a lot, and Ryan does, but their knowledge is so tendentiously selected that information, instead of connecting them to what is real, actually armors them against it. Such is the case with Ryan. The media spotlight has been on the renowned Ryan budget, passed twice by the Republican majority in the House, but even more telling is his stand on global warming: he is a major-league denier. All the most prestigious academies of science around the world, including the American National Academy of Sciences, agree that warming is real, man-made and well advanced. Ryan demurs. He has accused climate scientists of a “perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion” in order to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” He has voted against all measures to remedy the problem. He has suggested that winter in Wisconsin is evidence against warming, which he has called “a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow.”
As for that budget, it promises to achieve balance while providing no such thing, instead calling for broad tax cuts without specifying spending cuts anywhere near the level that would be needed as offsets to bring it into balance. Ryan’s budget depends entirely on one of the hoariest false promises in politics, the free lunch, thereby contributing to what Paul Krugman rightly calls an economic “culture of fraud.”
About the Author
Jonathan Schell
Jonathan Schell
is the Doris Shaffer Fellow at The Nation Institute and teaches a course on the
nuclear dilemma at Yale...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
