Categories
Economics

July 4th

I really enjoy the 4th of july. Of all of the secular holidays, it’s my favorite. I’m always amazed at the guys that signed the Declaration of Independence. Talk about putting everything on the line… Let me tell you, America is a wonderful place, it’s good to know that I can always come back here and that I can get a job. Lots of places, hell, most places can’t claim those two things. Yemen certainly can’t. Despite it’s shortcomings (nothing’s perfect), America is the best place to be. For those of you that haven’t read it recently, here’s the Declaration of Independence. Keep in mind that the guys that signed this were signing their own death warrant, and the delivered it to the King!

I
N
CONGRESS, J
ULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration
of the thirteen united
States of America

w

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Categories
Economics

"Working Class"

Henry (my Scottish housemate) used a phrase that I have only heard uttered by people from the UK and Ireland. He said something about the “working class.” I mentioned that in the US, we don’t use that phrase and his response was, “What do you call them?” My thought was, who is them? It’s a really telling thing I think… Americans really don’t tend to think in those types of Marxist “classes,” we do talk in real vague terms like poor, rich, and middle class, but not “working.”

After all, everyone “works” in the US, even Bill Gates works… We’ve never had an aristocracy. For me, using the term “working class” is a little repulsive. It assumes that there is an entire group of people that are only good for a certain type of job. As the economy continues to change, there will be fewer and fewer blue collar jobs, the Brits will have to come up with a better description…

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

More on inflation in Yemen

There was recently a meeting (seems like all they do here is have meetings) discussing the rising prices here in Yemen, especially food. The government took a lot of heat, but they managed to sidestep the main things that the government is doing. As Milton Freidman once famously said, “Inflation everywhere is always a monetary phenomena.” What this means is that if everything goes up by 20% (to pick a number), it is because more money was added to the national money supply. The central bank does this through open market operations (in the US this is done by the fed buying and selling Tbills, This also affects the bond market and interest rates as well. I don’t know if there is an equivalent vehicle in Yemen.) Typically, the devaluation of the currency (i.e. inflation)in a big way is done to engage in seniorage. That is the act of deflating the currency deliberately in order to pay back debts. If the government takes out a loan of a million dollars in the form of Tbills, it is very tempting to inflate everything in order to pay for it. In simple terms, the government just prints enough money to pay for it. Of course the more money that is in the system, the less any particular dollar is worth. Some people accuse China of doing this in order to keep their goods “cheap” on the international scene. If they are it is quite misguided. Devaluing your currency has some pretty bad effects on the people living in that country, living with inflation is never a good thing…

There is general inflation going on in Yemen, and the central bank is to blame. Nobody seems to have mentioned that though. Most of the criticism came in the great, “Why doesn’t the government do something?” The government is doing something… it just isn’t what you like. If this keeps up, I expect jobs to start offering to pay in US dollars, UAE dirhams, or Euros instead of Riayls.

Most of the clamor is over food prices. People claim that food has risen faster than the general level of inflation. People were clamoring for the government to keep watch on the private sector who is pricing things at supposedly unconscionable rates knowing that Yemenis will pay “whatever the cost” for food. That last part is forgivable but still makes me shake my head. If people are willing to pay anything, why aren’t kabobs 1,000,000 dollars a piece? People aren’t willing to pay anything, but they are willing to pay the prices that are currently offered. Participants in the meeting claim that the private sector is what needs to be watched since, and this is a quote, “There are only a handful of people that control the importation of food and they control the prices.” AHA! I was right! There are only a handful of possible reasons for this. The first is that the companies are charging the competitive rate and prices will not fall unless the price of the supply drops. No one thinks that this is the case. Another possibility is that there is some sort of barrier to companies that want to compete in this market. Competition, especially from a foreign company, would cause prices to fall. The barrier would have to be made by the government. There isn’t a business out there that can stop a competitor from opening unless they have bought protection from the government. If these companies have indeed raised their prices faster than the rate of inflation (and thereby boosting their bottom line), that is a very good business opportunity for someone else. Something is preventing those competitors from coming in and the government has it’s fingerprints all over it. I do wish that basic econ was taught in schools…

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

Prediction markets, Wikipedia, and dispersed knowledge

Hayek is generally credited with the insight that the problem with socialism and command economies in general is that knowledge is widely dispersed throughout the population. Everyone knows something, and as a whole, we know much more than any small group or individual. Capitalist economies tend to extract this knowledge through price signals whereas command economies take their best guess but end up not having enough information to make the proper decisions.

A fascinating (to me at least) result of this is the ability of large numbers of people to properly guess random things like the weight of the horse that won the Kentucky derby. Several studies have been done on this and they always end up being within a pound or two of the actual number. There are other examples as well, but how do they work? The idea is a simple one. If people have an idea of the right answer, the “average” of their answers will converge on the correct one given enough answers. Now most people don’t have a very good idea about the specific weight of horses, but we all know that they aren’t 5 pounds, and we know that they aren’t 5000 pounds either. So we have a good enough idea that we guess within a reasonable amount plus or minus around the actual value. This statistical “noise” cancels out with enough answers and you’re left with the proper weight.

Things get even more interesting when you start dealing with “experts.” It takes far fewer answers for the average to come to the correct number. This makes sense since we would expect that experts would have far less variance to their answers. How do you limit these questions to “experts?” The simplest way is to put some money on the line, make a bet. This keeps the people who really don’t have a good idea from contributing and limit your answers to expert opinions. This is curious when dealing with the weight of horses, but it gets downright amazing when you start talking about policy issues, business decisions, and even presidential candidates.

Google has been using these sorts of “Prediction markets” with great success when dealing with internal questions, and there is a thriving market for presidential nominations. This may sound kind of strange, but it is a way of extracting knowledge from a dispersed population. Imagine if before the recent invasion of Iraq, a decision market was formed in the CIA asking what they thought the likelihood of WMD being in Iraq. If you allow anyone with some knowledge to contribute instead of a select few that may be guided by politics moreso than facts, you are much more likely to come up with the right answer. If people from not only the Iraq and middle east bureaus were allowed to vote but also anti-terrorism, Africa, nuclear proliferation teams, in short anyone that would have some sort of expertise on the proliferation of these sorts of things were allowed to vote, you would gain much more information than just following a handful of “experts” advice. There’s a good chance that the opinion CIA-wide about the probability of WMD in Iraq would have been negative. Of course who knows if that would have changed anything….

There is a potential problem of course. If there is a systemic bias among the “experts”, the results can be way off. It has to be systemic though, if only a few suffer from it, the results will wash out with enough contributers. I learned about this from a recent podcast from econtalk. There are some amazing examples given where this has worked very well. Of course the host gave a chilling counter example. he regularly holds seminars for the press and people up on capital hill. One of the questions he usually asks everyone is what percentage of Americans are paid the minimum wage. He claims that the median answer given to him is usually between 15% and 20%. The actual percentage is just below 3%. Clearly, this approach won’t work with everything, but it has promise and is being used successfully in the business world.

In the same podcast they also discussed the Wikipedia phenomena. For those of you not familiar with it, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is written by the people that read it. Anyone may contribute to it, and may edit whatever entry that they are reading. Most people never would have thought that this could work, but it does, and amazingly well. Errors are usually seen quite quickly and corrected. Once again, the idea is that everyone is knowledgeable about something, and our collective knowledge is far greater than any ad hoc group formed with the idea of writing an encyclopedia. The amount of knowledge out there is impressive, not just in depth, but in breadth. Wikipedia has articles on things that would never be in a regular encyclopedia, primarily because the publishers wouldn’t think of including some topics. Even if they did think about it, they may not have access to people that know much about them. Wikipedia keeps growing, both in the number of topics it covers and the amount of information included on any given topic.

The CIA is using a variation of this, their own intellipedia. The idea is that people can post articles on whatever topic that they feel is important. People then read the articles and they can add to it or edit it as they see fit. The article can be edited and reedited numerous times until some sort of consensus is formed, either in agreement or in opposing camps. By allowing the free flow of information among all of the people there, topics can be fleshed out quite a bit more completely and quickly than if it went through the traditional editing process. It also allows people from widely differing specialties to offer their expertise. Even if an expert that has tangential interest only qualified one sentence in the report, that is information that wouldn’t have been in there if done the traditional way. Once again, the idea is to take advantage of the dispersed knowledge that is out there. If enough people contribute, just about everything that is known about a topic can be gathered.

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

But wait, there’s even more on "gouging"…

So why is it that people will buy all of the gasoline when the prices are lower than the “market clearing” price? Why don’t people evaluate the situation and think to themselves, “Gee, there’s not much to go around, I better cut back?” The answer is one of the more misunderstood, and I think one of the more interesting aspects of price. Many, if not most, people view prices as being fairly arbitrary and motivated out of greed. Prices are much more complicated than that. As a matter of fact, accurate price setting is critical to the proper functioning of the economy.

Prices are a reflection of the incidence of supply and demand. Even without going into the details, it should be pretty obvious that when prices are low, either there is a ton of supply, not much demand, or both. On the other hand, when prices are high, demand is high, supply is low, or both. Nobody goes around trying to calculate relative supply and demand for every item they purchase to make sure they aren’t doing something they shouldn’t be doing like taking gas from a hospital or ambulance. The reason is because price tells us everything we need to know. Accurate prices are the quickest, easiest, and most efficient way of communicating the relative supply and demand of anything. If the gas is very expensive, we know that there is a lot of demand and/or a low supply. The beauty of this is that no one needs to make that insightful leap, it is enough that when it gets too expensive, we no longer buy it and others with higher demands can then have access to it.

This explains why price controls (like anti gouging laws, rent control, minimum wage, price supports for dairy, etc.) are so dangerous. If there is a disaster someplace and gasoline is in short supply, the price needs to go up in order to signal the smaller supply to consumers. If the price is held down at “regular” prices, there isn’t any signal that things are now different and that consumption should be different as well. Assuming a modicum of competition (and there always is with gas stations no matter where you are in the US), prices will come back down as the supply comes back to normal. The lower price signals to consumers that it is OK (and maybe even desirable) to consume more.

It works the other way too. If prices are made artificially high, producers will make more than is necessary. Not only are the higher prices a hit on the pocketbooks of the consumers, but the extra production is a waste of resources that could have been used for something whose actual demand is higher (i.e. is something that people actually want.) A perfect example is price supports for the dairy industry. They are allowed to set a higher price than what the market would bear (and a higher price than would occur if imports were allowed to freely compete). This causes us to not only spend more than we would otherwise, but they make too much milk. Luckily for the dairy industry, they also had the connections to make sure that they could not only set higher prices, they have Uncle Sam buy the excess…. Any other price floor (like the minimum wage or mandatory union hiring) or subsidy (like ethanol) has the same effect. Too much is made, more than the demand requires. It’s a huge waste of resources.

In a market with competition and minus government interference, prices will adjust to balance out the supply and demand for that product. Gum, labor, gas, homes, and even babysitters will have their prices determined by the constant feedback of market prices. The thing to remember about this is that there is no one person, group, or company that can determine prices. That’s right, you can’t set whatever price you want on your home and expect to sell it. WalMart cannot set wages arbitrarily low and expect to get the people they want to fill the positions they want. It also means that you shouldn’t be able to buy gas at $2.50 gallon right after a hurricane with no supplies coming for a while. If you can’t get paid what you want, it’s because either people don’t particularly want what you have to offer or there are many people offering the same skills.

Price is a critical indicator of relative supply and demand and it is the prime determinant of weather someone decides to buy (or sell) something. You can’t screw around with that without consequences….

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

More on "gouging"

It occurs to me that the efforts to make gouging illegal are really efforts to outlaw greed. If you are making policy, it is much more important to legislate against results instead of motivations. While it is certainly possible that a gas station owner might have a master’s degree in economics and will raise prices to insure availability of product and stimulate resupply, it is far more likely that the owner will simply see an opportunity to raise prices and make a buck. In the former case, the owner is looking out for the good of the community, in the latter, the guy is just “being greedy.” In either case, the results are the same. If we were actually worried about people’s well being in emergencies, we would pass laws requiring business owners to raise the prices during emergencies. This would cause self imposed rationing of important resources on the part of consumers and will ensure the quickest flow of goods to the affected areas. Instead, what we are given are laws that are concerned with how people feel about the situation and ignore what the consequences of that law are. Ideally, the government would stay out of it altogether, but the law I suggested would do less damage. High gas prices are never a “crisis”, but no gas certainly is.

“But people should react out of good intentions,” yeah, that would be nice. Here’s the thing, the saints that are in the situation will always rise to the occasion, the trick is to get the nonsaints and saints that are removed from the situation involved in doing good. Even if some gas station owners are willing to forgo potential profits and sell gas at the old price, will there be enough saints to understand the situation and only use gas when it is absolutely necessary? Sure, there are some businesses and people that will immediately flock to the affected area to help and bring supplies. Would more people come with supplies if they were poised to make some money at it? Would people in Georgia load up their pickup truck with plywood and drive to Florida after a hurricane if they were going to make 600-700 bucks doing it? You better believe it.. Trying to legislate morality is at best a fool’s errand and at worse is an excuse to impose one type of morality over everyone (see anti gay laws for example). Yes, sometimes people do not have everyone else’s best interests at heart, but as long as the results are the same as someone that does, who’s business is it what people think?

Categories
Economics

A few words about the cartoon

The cartoon I referenced in a previous post has caused some confusion and/or consternation. Just to be clear, my comments (and i believe the cartoon) were directed towards people that “miss” the simpler times before industrialization and capitalism or romanticize living in a tribe in a jumgle. Life sucked back then, everything was a chore, and there were very few options. On top of that, people died really young despite “clean living.” I think that all of us (including myself thank you) take what we have for granted and by wishing for a simpler life inadvertently wish away all of the great things that have come with progress (powered by capitalism). Longer lives have to be at the top of the list of advancements, but not scrounging for food, lots of options of how we want to live, having kids because you want them instead of them being a necessity, and all of the free time we have are among the other great things that have come at the “expense” of subsistence living and dying young. People sometimes complain about the “evils” of modern living, but living in the US today is a lot easier than it was in 1950, 1900, or 1850 let alone before industrialization. It’s important to understand what fuels this improvement over time and what impedes it. Even France is coming around to recognizing this, witness the new president and his reforms (longer work week, easier to hire/fire people, etc.) France understands that they are (and have been) stifling innovation and productivity. In short, they have been stifling progress. Progress is why we live better than cavemen, and until capitalism took over from feudalism, people didn’t live much differently than cavemen. Capitalism and progress are inexorably linked, this is shown again and again in countries all over the world. The US has been one of the few that have kept this in mind, many others have not and they have suffered mightily. I think the cartoon is a lot more concise than I am:-)

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

A great cartoon

It’s a simple, one panel thing, but it shows how quickly people are willing to substitute fantasy for reality. Progress is real, and it makes everything better…

See it here.

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

New farm bill coming up

Congress is starting to work on a new farm bill. My greatest wish is that we abolish all price supports, tariffs, subsidies, and any other corporate welfare notions that have traditionally been part of the farm bill. Keep in mind that the original bill was introduced in the ’30s when a 5th of the population worked on farms. Today, less than 2% of people work on farms and the vast majority of those farms are part of an enormous agribusiness business. The other thing to keep in mind is how few areas are actually supported through this legislation. Corn, cotton, wheat, rice, sugar, dairy, and soybeans are about it. Just about everything else from a farm does not receive any support or protection from the government. When was the last time you were worried about having enough apples, eggs, peanuts, beef, or chicken at the store? These protections cost taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars every decade, and that money goes right into the pockets of the agribusinesses. One idea that had been floated is to cut off direct subsidies to any farmer that has an income of over $200,000 a year. That proposal has been fought tooth and nail and will probably be defeated in committee. To me the message is clear, give us your money.

Some industries do not receive direct subsidies, products like sugar and dairy are instead given price controls that keep the price artificially high and therefore the supply artificially high as well. We pay plenty extra for these products directly, but also for any product that uses those ingredients. In the case of dairy, we not only pay extra for the products that we consume, but we pay an artificially high price for the dairy products that are not sold. The US government buys (i.e. the taxpayers), at a predetermined price all of the excess product that is not sold. What a racket! The median income for farmers is 10% above the median household income for the nation as a whole. It’s time to stop the handouts, they need to compete for our money…

As you might imagine, the prospects of the farm bill being totally recalled are almost zero. The agricultural sectors have considerable sway in congress (gee, wonder how they fund all of those lobbyists?) but it doesn’t end there. Years ago, the agricultural based congressmen realized that there wasn’t any reason for the more urban areas to want to pay more for products, so those congressmen likely wouldn’t vote for the farm bill. So what did they do? They tied the food stamp program to the farm bill, that gave urban representatives the incentive to vote for the farm bill. Sick, God how I hate politics…

One possible solution to this is to offer a buyout to the farmers. While it sickens me to pay extortion money, it would probably be worth it if in exchange the farm bill laws on the books are completely repealed. If they ever wanted to reinstate any sort of farm subsidies, they would have to do it from scratch and that would be much more difficult. The WTO may be the answer to the problem. Brazil has already won a suit dealing with cotton “against” us. If congress doesn’t get it’s act together and rectify the illegal and unfair support for American cotton growers, Brazil can take some amazing steps in retaliation including ignoring copyright laws. That could cost American businesses of all sorts billions and I don’t think congress can allow it to happen. If American farmers start to believe that these free lunches will dry up sooner than later, they may be willing to be bought out. I can only dream….

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

Yemen vs. the Philippines

I had always wondered why I see so many Philipino women here. It seemed strange that labor would need to be imported with so much unemployment here. I got to talk to one today as we were waiting for the travel agent to open. She tells me that the job availability is about the same here as it is there, but they get paid slightly more here! I keep forgetting that there are places that are much worse off than Yemen. People keep coming here by the hundreds from Somalia. The only answers I can come up with as to why Philipinos can get work here are training and they don’t have to wear a veil. It’s sad to think that Yemenis don’t have the skills to work a counter at a bowling alley, a travel agent, or in a hotel, but I am now coming around to believing it.

When I volunteered at a prison in Arlington, one of the things we were supposed to emphasize was basic job skills like dressing up for an interview, showing up on time, not leaving early, etc. It shocked me to think that someone didn’t know these things, but they didn’t. I have talked to several (western) owners of businesses here and they no longer hire Yemenis. The frequent complaints were people not coming in on time (or at all), disappearing for hours, Quat chewing on the job, and a general lack of people skills. I think it’s unfair to label an entire country’s population with undesirable work related skills, but these owners had had enough. I have certainly seen a lack of service skills across many different businesses. These Philipino women apparently bring the employers the skills that they need, like making the customer happy. The other possibility is that some employers prefer to have women that you can look at without veils or hijabs. Maybe they feel that seeing an actual woman could improve sales. It might.

Economists refer to the skill sets of people as “human capital”, and it is, by far, the most valuable and most flexible of all of the types of capital out there. Yemen certainly needs foreign investment here, but without the necessary human capital, not much will be accomplished. Hmmm, maybe that’s a decent business opportunity for me…:-)

tags technorati :