Category Archives: Economy

Why Aren’t The H1-B Hogs Satisfied With The O-1 “Extraordinary Ability” Visa?

The excerpt is from my new, VDARE.Com column:

“[T]he O-1 visa

“…is a nonimmigrant status category for aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, the arts (including the television and motion picture industry), education, business, and athletics. This is an employment-related status that allows qualified aliens to live and work in the United States.. An O-1 petition is sponsored by an American employer.”

More significantly, there is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited. …

My point vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The primary H-1B hogs—Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel—are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. But, in reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program…if they really wanted it. …

Theoretically, the H-1B program could be totally abolished and all needed Einsteins (and pin-up girls) imported through the O-1 program…they just need to demonstrate “extraordinary ability.”

The complete column: “Why Aren’t The H1-B Hogs Satisfied With The O-1 ‘Extraordinary Ability’ Visa? Oh, Wait A Minute…”

Misdirecting Production

Economy, Free Markets, Government, Political Economy

The planned $25 billion to a favored and failing industry, GM, will cause other, perhaps successful, companies to fail. It’s what Frédéric Bastiat referred to as “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen“:

In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.
There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

We are being sapped by bad economists and their political pimps.

Ludwig von Mises wrote this in Interventionism: An Economic Analysis:

“In the unhampered market, forces are at work which tend to put every means of production to the use in which it is most beneficial for the satisfaction of human wants. When the authority interferes with this process in order to bring about a different use of the productive factors it can only impair the supply, it cannot improve it.” (P. 17)

Update II: ‘Monetary Freedom and Its Opposite’

Economy, EU, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, Political Economy, The State

Writes Mark Thornton of the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

“As we enter the era of decline for the dollar all sorts of reforms will be used to address this decline and the economic instability it causes. However, reforms designed on Wall Street or in Washington will not work and will amount to nothing more than rear guard action by the moneyed interests that control the government.

The only true path to reform is monetary freedom. We have gone from a situation where money was entirely free from government intervention to one that is completely dominated by government. Instead of privately minted coins made from precious metals we now have a system of government-printed paper fiat currency. We have gone from a system of private banking that provided bank notes and checks for demand deposits to one where banks are completely regulated by the central bank and a host of other regulatory bodies. The idea that our current financial mess resulted from a lack of regulation is truly laughable. Of course this process has taken centuries to complete. By giving up our monetary freedom—particularly over the last one hundred years—we have given government the ability to grow in size and scope and to achieve unthinkable levels of power. Every step forward towards government control of money has resulted in social chaos and economic destruction. The real economy only grows in the interludes when monetary mischief is at a minimum.”

[Snip]

Pay attention to the section, “What do we need to do as individuals?”

Update I: As always, Pat Buchanan delves well into the history of events–in this case The Bretton Woods Agreements, and the ongoing, current attempt to recreate a second Bretton Woods by unseating the US and its fallen currency. What I don’t get is why is Pat so confident that a “global central bank, the Fed of the world economy,” will not come to pass. He claims “Americans are not going to fund such a bank, nor cede it authority, nor abide by its dictates. We are not yet a Third World nation dependent on the IMF.”

Why Not? Whence comes the confidence? Pat’s courage and convictions are not shared in Washington and on Wall Street. (Or on “Main Street,” for that matter.)

Update II (Nov. 15): The G-20 Summit, where G stands for Golem, has concluded. Some humor has been injected into this solemn affair, as the central planners’ affirmed “their commitment to free market principles.” Another thing to tickle the funny bone: the commitment these counterfeiters made to “promoting integrity in financial markets.” Nothing about integrity in government. I guess that’s a contradiction in terms.

Updated: Pawlenty Or Ponnuru; It’s All The Same

Conservatism, Economy, Elections 2008, Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Republicans

The Republican Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has declared:

“‘Drill baby, drill’ by itself is not an energy policy. It’s not enough. We’re going to need wind and solar and bio mass.”

What Pawlenty is saying is that arguing with global warming politics is not viable. Therefore, the logic of drilling must be substituted with the illogic of expensive, and hence dirtier, sources of energy. As I wrote in “The Goods on Gas“:

“The more efficient the source of energy, the less waste and pollution are involved in its conversion into energy. Think of the totality of the production process! The fewer resources expended in bringing a fuel to market, the cleaner and cheaper is the process.”

So, Mr. Pawlenty, drilling is so an energy policy—especially if one hasn’t drilled in decades, and if oil is one of most viable sources of energy. Most Republicans have simply lost the ability to make a case, any case.

Update (Nov. 20): It’s my theory that the quest for power, among the punditocracy and the pols alike, creates a convergence toward opinions most acceptable to power brokers and voters.

To wit, in “Rebooting the Right,” Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of National Review, ladles out the same lukewarm, happy, middle-grounds we’ve heard from most GOPers–and I surveyed in “GOP, RIP?“:

“At the GOP governors’ meeting this month, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota argued that Republicans need to stay conservative but also modernize. A revitalized conservatism would push for tax reform with an eye on middle-class families, not hedge-fund operators. It would seek solutions to global warming rather than deny that it exists. It would place a higher priority on making health care affordable than on slashing pork programs. It would promote the assimilation of Hispanics rather than regard them as a menace or a source of cheap labor.”