text:
Tokyo: Asian shares were mostly higher Thursday, taking their cue from the latest record highs on Wall Street. Chinese investors are holding back ahead of a key communist party meeting next week.
KEEPING SCORE: Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 added 0.5 percent in early trading to 20,988.06. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 gained 0.2 percent to 5,785.10. South Korea's Kospi rose 0.3 percent to 2,464.88. Hong Kong's Hang Seng advanced 0.2 percent to 28,464.38, while the Shanghai Composite dipped 0.2 percent to 3,382.49.
WALL STREET: The Standard & Poor's 500 index gained 0.2 percent to 2,555.24. The Dow Jones industrial average also rose 0.2 percent, to 22,872.89, and the Nasdaq composite climbed 0.2 percent to 6,603.55. All three indexes finished at all-time highs.
JAPAN RALLY: Japan's Nikkei 225 index has closed at 21 year highs over the past few days, lifted by optimism over the latest economic data and anticipation of strong corporate results in the upcoming quarterly reporting period. Expectations are rising that an Oct. 22 nationwide election for the more powerful lower house of Parliament will reinforce a strong majority for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's ruling Liberal Democrats, who favor tax cuts for corporations.
ENERGY: Benchmark U.S. crude oil lost 26 cents to $51.04 a barrel. It rose 38 cents to $51.30 a barrel overnight in New York. Brent crude, used to price international oils, fell 31 cents to $56.63 a barrel in London.
CURRENCIES: The dollar rose to 112.41 yen from 112.26 yen. The euro rose to $1.1874 from $1.1819.


text:
Bolt2008 Action/Adventure | Animation | Comedy | Family
For super-dog "Bolt", every day is filled with adventure, danger and intrigue - at least until the cameras stop rolling. When the star of a hit TV show is accidentally shipped from his Hollywood soundstage to New York City, he begins his biggest adventure yet - a cross-country journey through the real world to get back to his owner and co-star, Penny. Armed only with the delusions that all his amazing feats and powers are real, and the help of two unlikely traveling companions -- a jaded, abandoned housecat named Mittens and a TV-obsessed hamster named Rhino -- Bolt discovers he doesn't need superpowers to be a hero.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
ARTIS FILM ROMANIA Ltd. is a film production company located in Bucharest.
We produced features, documentaries and shorts. Some of them where in faimous festivals
We started as a small company in 1999, but we have been steadily growing due to our creative potential and our great devotion to world cinema.
Our company employs a number of people on a full-time basis, as well as freelance professionals on a contract basis for each new project.
We have professional pre-production and production crews, all the technicians and equipment you need for doing a movie in Romania, as well as state-of-the-art post production facilities.
Romania encompasses an incredible range of locations, including: the snow-capped Carpathian Mountains just a two-hour drive from Bucharest; the Danube River, revered as one of the most beautiful in the world; northern Moldavia -- a four-hour drive from Bucharest -- home to medieval monasteries famous for their frescoes of remarkable composition and color; and modern and classic European-style cities with their picturesque mixture of old churches, museums, thseatres and concert halls, modern office buildings, luxury hotels, exquisite restaurants, and service facilities.
Our company will respond to your filmmaking needs with the highest standards of quality and professionalism.
Cornelia PALOS
Adrian POPOVICI
About us
ARTIS FILM ROMANIA Ltd. is a film production company located in Bucharest.


text:
With the arrival of iTunes 11, classical music fans – and anyone with a large music library – have lamented the removal of certain features and views that help organize large amounts of music. I touched on some of these in my extensive review of iTunes 11 for Macworld, and in my discussion of iTunes 11 on the Macworld podcast. But I would like to summarize here the problems that iTunes 11 has brought specifically to classical music listeners.
First, there is no Composers view. In the iTunes window, you can view your music by Songs, Albums, Artists Genres and Playlists, but Composers has been forgotten.
Next, the Column Browser has been removed. This was a very practical way of viewing your library by drilling down from, say, Genre to Composer to Album. Previously, the Column Browser was available either on the top of a window or on the left side, allowing for two different ways of viewing music. It's still available, but only in one view: Songs. The Songs view is sterile and hard to use, because there is no artwork displayed, and because there is no visible separation between albums.
Album List view was also removed. This allowed users to display a list of their music with album art, and the artwork delimited each album, making it easy to spot an album at a glance. Also, this list view would display whichever columns a user wanted to see, and users could sort by any column, such as Date Added, Composer, Artist, Album, etc. The new Albums view only shows track names, ratings and times, and sort options are limited.
In the iTunes Store, there is no longer a Composer column when you view an album. So if you see a recording with several works of the same name, but by different composers, there's no way of knowing which is which, if you want to buy one or several tracks of work by a specific composer.
And in the iTunes Store, the Power Search feature was removed. You could use this to search for items by multiple criteria, including composer. If you were looking for an album with a work by a specific composer, played by a specific artist, this was a practical way to find it.
iTunes is clearly targeted at those listeners who consume songs, not those who collect classical music, or who have large libraries. But what chagrins me is that it would have been simple to keep the above features; they don't specifically clash with the overall interface. Their removal makes iTunes much harder to use with classical music, and with large libraries. I can only hope that Apple makes some changes so those users who need these features can feel comfortable with the program.


text:
Digital Intelligence Systems LLC has raised $20 million in growth equity led by Weston Presidio. The company, based in McLean, Va., is an IT staffing and consulting firm.
Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC (DISYS), a leading IT staffing and consulting firm based in McLean, Virginia, announced today that it has completed a successful $20 million growth equity investment led by Weston Presidio.
DISYS, which was recently recognized by Staffing Industry Analysts as the 2nd fastest-growing IT firm among U.S. companies exceeding $100M in revenue for 2012, intends to use the proceeds from the investment to continue its expansion plan. With a 30% annual growth rate over the last 5 years, DISYS has continued its US expansion in 2012 with additional operations in Denver and Philadelphia. DISYS also added global delivery operations in Switzerland and India and has substantially grown its Brazilian operations.
"We are very proud of our momentum and growth," DISYS founder and CEO Mahfuz Ahmed said, "The equity investment from Weston Presidio allows us to target strategic acquisitions and other growth initiatives to provide a richer portfolio of IT solutions to our growing stable of Global 1000 enterprises."
"We are very excited to partner with DISYS, which has distinguished itself with an impressive growth track record and an unsurpassed customer commitment," said Josh McDowell, a Partner of Weston Presidio.
"We were attracted to the team's strategic vision and their ability to execute their plan to build a unique global IT services and solutions company," added Sean Honey, Managing Partner of Weston Presidio.
DISYS was advised by Clearsight Advisors of McLean, Virginia in this transaction.
About DISYS
DISYS is an ISO 9001:2008 certified IT staffing and consulting company with core services in IT Staffing and Consulting, Finance and Professional Services, ERP Services, and Infrastructure Support Services. As a global business partner, the company delivers high quality and consistent services at the best value to clients worldwide. DISYS is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, with numerous offices and delivery locations in North and South America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region.
About Weston Presidio
Weston Presidio, founded in 1991, is a private equity firm that has managed five investment funds aggregating over $3.3 billion. The firm focuses its investment activities on growth companies in the consumer, business services and industrial growth sectors. With offices in Boston and San Francisco, Weston Presidio targets lower middle-market opportunities primarily in the United States.


text:
Sec. of State Clinton's tone seems much more toned down than the Presidential proclamation. There is a great difference between "recognition" and "pride". No one should argue against decrying and preventing human rights violations against any person or class of persons. Legitimate disagreement as to what is 'included' in such human rights is valid.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 1, 2009
Forty years ago this month, the gay rights movement began with the Stonewall riots in New York City, as gays and lesbians demanded an end to the persecution they had long endured. Now, after decades of hard work, the fight has grown into a global movement to achieve a world in which all people live free from violence and fear, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In honor of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and on behalf of the State Department, I extend our appreciation to the global LGBT community for its courage and determination during the past 40 years, and I offer our support for the significant work that still lies ahead.
At the State Department and throughout the Administration, we are grateful for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees in Washington and around the world. They and their families make many sacrifices to serve our nation. Their contributions are vital to our efforts to establish stability, prosperity and peace worldwide.
Human rights are at the heart of those efforts. Gays and lesbians in many parts of the world live under constant threat of arrest, violence, even torture. The persecution of gays and lesbians is a violation of human rights and an affront to human decency, and it must end. As Secretary of State, I will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Though the road to full equality for LGBT Americans is long, the example set by those fighting for equal rights in the United States gives hope to men and women around the world who yearn for a better future for themselves and their loved ones.
This June, let us recommit ourselves to achieving a world in which all people can live in safety and freedom, no matter who they are or whom they love.


text:
July 5, 2007
Zoho vs Google Docs
While Google still works on completing its online office suite by adding a presentation app and integrating JotSpot, an Indian company called AdventNet already has one and it includes everything from word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, notebooks to wikis, online databases, project management. It's called Zoho and it keeps getting better every day.
Zoho opted for a more familiar look, so most of their products are inspired from Microsoft Office. Unlike Google Docs & Spreadsheets that has a start page which lists all your files, Zoho uses a sidebar that shows the files created using the active application. Zoho's word processor has a tabbed interface, so you never have to leave the current page to switch to a new document. While many options work like in Google Docs, Zoho pushes the boundaries and lets you save templates and even share them in a public template library. It's also able to import bigger files than Google Docs: I managed to upload a 2.8 MB document and I couldn't find a precise number for the maximum size of a document. Unfortunately, the application is barely responsive when you edit a big document.
Zoho Writer lets you publicize a document, post it to a blog or collaborate with your contacts. But collaboration is Zoho Writer's weakest point because it doesn't happen in real-time and you don't see the changes made by your collaborators unless you refresh the page and that's not very cool.
The integration between Zoho's apps is not very visible, so if you want to switch from Zoho Writer to Zoho Sheet, you'll have to type the URL in the address bar or use your bookmarks. Zoho Sheet doesn't have tabs, but it's much buggier than Zoho Writer. A simple spreadsheet that loaded just fine in Google Spreadsheets managed to make my browser completely unresponsive for minutes. I particularly like the way they handled formulas and how easy is to add new functions from the list. In Zoho Sheet, the collaboration is in real-time, but Zoho has a strange of handling conflicts that manages to produce different spreadsheets for each collaborator. And some of the copies are really broken.
The funny thing about Zoho Show, the presentation app from Zoho's suite, is that when you import a presentation, it recommends to make it read-only. In this case, this would be just a PPT viewer, like the one available in Gmail. Once you import your presentation, there's a magical link at the top of the window that lets you actually view, but you'll have to guess it. The application is very simple and doesn't go beyond inserting some text, shapes and arrows. The rendering of the presentation is worse than Gmail's and the slide show looks even worse.
Zoho Creator is something that Google doesn't have and it actually works great. It's the online version of Microsoft Access and it lets you create and manage database applications. The nice thing about the app is that you can easily build forms that can be embedded in your site and populate your database. You can create contact forms or more complex things like a CRM application. There's a big list of templates, a simple way to build scripts for your forms, you have email notifications. The application only needs better reports, some SQL support and an API.
Speaking of which, Zoho has some APIs that enable other services to list your files hosted at Zoso, to import/export files and also to edit remote documents. There's nothing like Google Spreadsheets API that lets you interact with a spreadsheet more granularly, but Zoho's purpose was probably to make it easy to integrate with storage services that lack document editing features.
While Google Docs lacks many features already available in Zoho's office suite (and even entire apps) and the existing features are more limited, Google's applications are much more stable and work better if you share your files with other people. Zoho offers a lot of tools, including a plugin for Microsoft Office that lets you work on your files online and saves them to Zoho from Microsoft Word and Excel. Their integration with Microsoft products and the impressive size of the portfolio certainly makes Zoho a candidate for a Microsoft acquisition.
Zoho's future plans are to integrate their products and to provide a proper replacement for Microsoft Outlook: email, calendar, contacts and task management. Zoho Mail is not yet ready for prime time, but you can see a demo here.
32 comments:
google should buy itReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 5, 2007 at 8:32 AM
I bet they will.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 5, 2007 at 10:38 AM
I used Zoho and ThinkFree before and ever since I was expecting Google will add more applications to their Suite. I think if Google still can't make their PowerPoint yet, it is time for them to consider buying Zoho (they have already bought a few others).ReplyDelete
Apart from Docs, Google should do ToDo or Task and integrate with Gmail and Calendar. Also, they should integrate Notebook with Docs and again Gmail since Gmail is the primary interface to Google's services.
finally someone starts talking about their amazing work. google just should round file all their web apps and buy Zoho (or not actually...happy their are on their own)!ReplyDelete
i use Zoho Projects for a group of 20, and we all
use their various other apps.
will take google 10 years, at their pace, to reach half of Zoho's sophistication.
Microsoft has already Office Live, with monthly subscription fee. Not likely MS want to acquire Zoho. Business users would be more suspicious about this kind of standalone company.ReplyDelete
Google Office has other directions to go, and closer tie with MS Office is not.
I used Google Docs sometimes to collaborate editing documents.
Any online solution has better provide good backup solutions in case network down/traffic.
take a look at Zoho's CRM application... the degree of sophistication, flexibility and power built into that app, makes me WANT to do hard core SALES just to use it ! The Zoho team behind that must have been on Dexidrine !ReplyDelete
Congratulations, Alex, on your article. This is the first time that someone has actually bothered to talk about the PERFORMANCE as opposed to the FEATURES of Zoho et al.ReplyDelete
Google Docs may not be the last word in sophistication but it works virtually without a hitch. Can anyone honestly say that about Zoho?
FYI, LimitNone (www.limitnone.com) provides integration between Google and Microsoft. There is also a white paper called "Google and Microsoft: Living together in harmony" that will be of interest to anyone working with both MS Office and Google Apps.ReplyDelete
So, when is G buying it??!!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 6, 2007 at 3:37 AM
I have tried Zoho in the past and went and looked again after reading this. While Zoho is more sophisticated on the UI Google Docs just flat out works. Zoho, not so much as you pointed out.ReplyDelete
Zoho has a wide offering of applications, but that isn't Google's intent and I don't think it should be. There are those that need some of the things that Zoho offers and then there are the rest of us.
I don't need CRM, database, projects or conferencing. I don't even really NEED presentations. What I need is a fast, reliable and stable version of docs and spreadsheets which Google does very well. I doubt that Goog would buy Zoho because to me it is much more than they are after. Then again, who knows for sure.
I also attempted to use Zoho, but now use Google because it integrates better with everything else I do online. They both need some work, and hopefully this rivalry will be a primary motivator for improvement.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 6, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Oh lots of Zoho fans out here :)ReplyDelete
Well, Zoho is far better than Google docs and I think your comment section shows that too!
- AnonymousJuly 10, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Thanks, I hadn't heard about Zoho yet and I had been using Google Docs for about a year now because of its collaboration features. I also like that it is integrated with my G-Mail and all of my other Google services, but I like that Zoho offers so many applications. It doesn't have the big name that Google does though, so will it catch on?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 24, 2007 at 4:36 AM
I just wonder how people can manage projects with help of Zoho. I think Zoho as well as Google apps suit for real-time editing documents. And when people need to manage projects, they should consider something like Wrike.com and etc.ReplyDelete
Thanks for pointing at Wrike.com, Mark! I've been looking for something like this. Now, I guess, my search is over :)ReplyDelete
I just discovered zoho and i'm very happy that it support a TODO system. I use it to manage a team (http://www.alldeny.com) of 10 engineers working for a web project.ReplyDelete
I decided to try Zoho because just about every Google app has formatting issues. I specifically wanted to use Zoho as a WYSIWYG editor for my Blogger blog, but unfortunately, that hasn't been working - Zoho gives me an error every time I try to publish a document to my blog.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 11, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I have done extensive test and have written detailed comparision.. hereReplyDelete
Google: Essential, not fancy.ReplyDelete
Zoho: Fancy, not essential.
I don't need CRM, database, projects or conferencing. I don't even really NEED presentations. What I need is a fast, reliable and stable version of docs and spreadsheets which Google does very well. I doubt that Goog would buy Zoho because to me it is much more than they are after. Then again, who knows for sure.ReplyDelete
Zoho is a damn perfect application,I have been using zoho for about 4 months and Zoho really rocks, Its not a matter of performance or fancy . Guys the way it helps the user to handle means alot and Zoho is doing this perfectly,ReplyDelete
Right from the application loading style and the working way, zoho had created a perfect bench mark and really awesome interface... Good Going Zoho...
Must improve Google!!!!!!!
- AnonymousJune 2, 2009 at 5:03 AM
Zoho couldn't even import a simple .doc file. Instafail.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Google Apps and Zoho are both wonderful. I personally preferred Google Apps but would love to see Google improve their form builder to more Zoho Creator provides.ReplyDelete
Being Indian and a software engineer all I can say that zoho can also offer better integration with mailbox but all is the copy right issues and this is where zoho lags against docs because docs belongs to google which holds gmail, used by many of us and zoho integrate their own mail box with various applications.ReplyDelete
But this is the time when one should start encouraging small firms like zoho and with various free applications to suit your all online services, along with a decent mail box feature, where against many apps google lags behind or may be business reason not to launch all apps as a single pack.
Most of working professionals are familiar with Microsoft Office Outlook interface and prefer to work like so, so here we do have zoho, what one need is just standing out of google application's charm and familiarity and spare some time with zoho products then one would be able to appreciate such nice and all online products.
For example if one is having all 24X7 sure internet connectivity than who is asking him to even install outlook or Microsoft office products which not only consumes considerable part of your cheap memory but consumes most important CPU clocks.
Please come against me if i am wrong somewhere as forums are made to find best solution, not to decide who is right or wrong.
- AnonymousMay 17, 2010 at 7:52 AM
Time to redo the comparison. This comparison is 3 years old. A lot has changed. There are plugins for Google Apps too that need investigating like manymoon for project management. Zoho got an early start, but I think google will give them a run for their money in the long term.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 17, 2010 at 7:59 AM
To date ... it looks like for project managment it's Zoho hands down ... it even does gannt charts.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 17, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Google Apps is that it costs $50 per user. For a cash conservative company, it's high.ReplyDelete
Google docs is very limited, but it would work good for a casual time-to-time user. For offline office, there's openoffice and ibm-lotus symphonyReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 30, 2010 at 3:26 AM
Zoho all new feature has been coping from google's productsReplyDelete
I don't need CRM, database, projects or conferencing. I don't even really NEED presentations. What I need is a fast, reliable and stable version of docs and spreadsheets which Google does very well. I doubt that Goog would buy Zoho because to me it is much more than they are after. Then again, who knows for sure.ReplyDelete
What's up to every one, the contents existing at this web page are truly amazing for people experience, well, keep up the good work fellows.ReplyDelete
JetBrains PhpStorm 10 Crack
good job thanks for sharing. Daily Windows 8.1 Loader ActivatorReplyDelete


text:
I work for a school district. Every year we have to export a list of students from our student management system and send it to a company that handles our online exams.
So to do this export, we had to hire someone who knew the inner workings of our student management system. He wrote an sql (Adaptive Sybase SQL Anywhere) query to export the students to a csv file like we needed. This was before I started working for the district, so for a while I assumed this was an actually application, until it came time for me to do the export myself.
And every year he charges us $500 to update this query to export the students for the current year. So when I discovered it was only a query (.bat file and .sql file), my thought was "I can update this myself". All I have to do is change the years in the query (eg. 2009 to 2010).
The query (.sql file) itself has this comment at the top:
// This code was writtend by [the guy]
// and is the property of [his company]...Copyright 2005,2006,2008,2009
// This code MAY NOT BE USED without the expressed written consent of
// [his company].
(Yes, it really does says "writtend".)
So now my boss is worried that we're violating the copyright. And that the guy is gonna find out that I updated the query myself because we haven't asked him to update it this year and take legal action.
So back to the subject's question: Can he really copyright this query? And if so, is modifying it ourselves a copyright violation? In my mind, a single query isn't program code. It's more a command line command. But I don't know what it's considered legally.


text:
Vintage Market Paint & Finishes Paint - A Chalk Based Paint
A medium/dark pink/brown. Very versatile!
*Note: Photos are our actual jars of paint but due to different computer/phone/tablet monitors/calibrations colors may vary slightly from the picture.
For the best depiction of all 75 colors, please see our hand-painted color chart
4 sizes
4 Ounce- Coverage=12-25 sq ft
8 Ounce- Coverage=25-50 sq ft
16 Ounce- Coverage=50-100 sq ft
32 Ounce- Coverage=100-160 sq ft
* Coverage areas are approximate- Coverage may vary depending on dryness of wood or type of surface being painted.
Stir and mix paint well.
Extend brush only 1/4" into paint
Apply very thin coat in a criss cross pattern.
Allow to dry, then 'cure' (allowing strong adhesion) for 3-12 hours depending on humidity levels in your area.
Apply 2nd coat in same manner. Paint is self-leveling.
Allow to dry and 'cure' for 12-24 hours.
Apply VMP&F Natural Wax to enhance depth or to deepen tone of paint color. VMP&F Wax will also combine with VMP&F Paint creating an enduring finish.
Once wax is absorbed, wipe of excess and buff with soft cloth.
After 24 hours apply VMP&F Clear Coat to seal your work!


text:
Palm Radio Peg Leg Tilt Stand for the FT-817ND and FT-818
Las Vegas:
Distribution Center:
Peg Leg Tilt Stand Kit for Yaesu FT-817ND and FT-818
The Peg Leg tilt stand system was developed to improve the operating convenience of the Yaesu FT-817 by raising the front about an inch and a half. The result is easier reading of the display, and better access to the front-panel controls.
The Peg Leg is an ingenious device, designed and manufactured in Germany. It comes as a kit including detailed mounting instructions and all necessary parts like washers, screws, etc. The Peg Legs are made of stainless steel for maximum strength, stability, and durability.
1. The Peg Legs are permanently attached to the radio, so you won't lose them or have to search for them before your portable activities.
2. The legs fold downwards in operation. They tilt back up and out of the way for storage or when transporting the rig.
3. The kit includes non-skid rubber feet for both legs and self-adhesive rubber feet to stick on the rear area of the bottom
cover. An 817 with Peg Legs installed will stay put!
4. Durable but light-weight stainless steel is used for the legs and the screws, while high-quality nylon is used for the
5. Installation of the Peg Leg system does not interfere with shoulder strap attachment.
6. All front panel controls and the jacks on the side remain accessible and fully functional. Because the rear of the radio
is tilted downward, we recommend using a right-angle co-ax adapter, or the front antenna jack.


text:
Sign up for news & offers
On all orders over €75
On selected products
This unlined, waterproof EcoLight kids all in one suit from Muddy Puddles is perfect for use in any LittleLife Child Carrier and is great for the planet too. It will enable you to get out in any weather and allow your family the freedom to explore the great outdoors safely and in comfort. Made using recycled fabrics, this protective puddle suit includes waterproof zips, adjustable underfoot stirrups and a secure hood. This unlined version is easy to wear as a lightweight waterproof shell over warmer layers. It packs away into its own pocket and includes a karabiner so you can attach it to your bag, child carrier or buggy. It includes reflective details for additional safety and is machine washable.
If you are not happy with your purchase for any reason, we will gladly accept your return within 30 days by completing the Returns Form.
For full terms and conditions please see our Delivery & Returns policy.
Embrace family life, your greatest adventure yet - with confidence and freedom.
For Life's Little Adventures
© LittleLife 2022 All Rights Reserved. | Privacy & Cookies


text:
Paul Krugman Talks to Bill Moyers About How to Speed Recovery -- And Why He Doesn't Want to Run the Treasury
Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argues that saving money is not the path to economic recovery. Instead, he tells Bill Moyers, we should put aside our excessive focus on the deficit, try to overcome political recalcitrance, and spend money to put America back to work. Krugman offers specific solutions to not only end what he calls a "vast, unnecessary catastrophe," but to do it more quickly than some imagine possible. His latest book, End This Depression Now!, is both a warning of the fiscal perils ahead and a prescription to safely avoid them.
A transcript of Krugman's interview with Bill Moyers on the PBS show, Moyers & Company, appears below the video.
Paul Krugman Explains the Keys to Our Recovery
Moyers & Company, January 11, 2013
BILL MOYERS: Welcome. Just before the holidays, we asked you, our viewers, to recommend the one book you thought President Obama should read as he prepares himself for his second term in office. As ever, your suggestions were thoughtful, provocative and eclectic – from books by authors who have appeared as guests on this broadcast, to works by the late John Steinbeck and A. A. Milne, the creator of Winnie-the-Pooh. You can see a list at our Web site, BillMoyers.com.
Many of you asked for my choice, too. This is it – Paul Krugman's End This Depression Now! It's both prescription and warning: our current obsession with slashing the deficit and avoiding that well-known and worn fiscal cliff is killing us, Krugman writes, getting in the way of what really needs to be done – which is dedicating government to creating jobs and getting us back to full employment. He blames not only Congress but the White House.
Paul Krugman is professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. Since 1999, he's been an op-ed columnist at The New York Times and now also writes a blog for the paper titled "The Conscience of a Liberal." According to the search engine Technorati, it's the most popular blog by an individual on the internet. Author or editor of some twenty books and more than 200 professional papers, Krugman is a thinker so esteemed and widely known in his field he's become an icon. Not only has he won the Nobel Prize in Economics, he's also the subject of this song by the balladeer Loudon Wainwright III…
LOUDON WAINWRIGHT III: I read the New York Times, that's where I get my news; Paul Krugman's on the op-ed page, that's where I get the blues. 'Cause Paul always tells it like it is, we get it blow by blow…
BILL MOYERS: As if being immortalized by the blues isn't enough, there was even an unofficial campaign and petition in the last few days urging President Obama to make Paul Krugman the next Secretary of the Treasury. It was an honor, as Shakespeare would say, that Mr. Krugman dreams not of.
Paul Krugman, welcome.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Hi there.
BILL MOYERS: So, like William Tecumseh Sherman you refuse to be drafted.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Well, you know, fortunately it hasn't come to that point. But I think I probably would.
BILL MOYERS: But you remember what General Sherman said when there was a movement to run him for president. "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." That was the Sherman like statement you issued.
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's, well, I'm not quite up to Sherman's standards and I don't think I'm quite ready to lay waste to Georgia either. But a good, good man I admire actually.
BILL MOYERS: But the grassroots campaign in your behalf, unofficial, was serious. I mean, over 235,000 people signed on. You broke their hearts. Any regrets?
PAUL KRUGMAN: No, because I probably have more influence than I, doing what I do now than I would if I were inside trying to, you know, do the court power games that come with any White House, even the best, which I don't think I'd be any good at. So no, this is fine. And what the president needs right now is he needs a hardnosed negotiator. And rumor has it that's what he's got, so.
BILL MOYERS: In Jack Lew?
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right. The president can't pass major new legislation. He can't formulate major new programs right now. What he has to do now is bargain down or ride over these crazy people in the Republican Party. And we what we need now is not deep thinking from the treasury secretary. If the president wants deep thinkers, he can call Joe Stiglitz, he can call other people. What he needs from the Treasury secretary is somebody who's going to be very effective at dealing with these wild men and making sure that nothing terrible happens.
BILL MOYERS: I understand that Jack Lew has Depression art on his, the wall of his office, art done by the Works Progress Administration. Which would be a good sign for someone like you who believes the Depression is back.
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's, I have to say, the most reassuring thing I've heard about him. WPA, you know, they produced a lot of art, which I think it's almost inconceivable now. But also the WPA was one of the really good moments in American policy. In a time of economic disaster, hiring people, giving them jobs to do things that are good, much of which survives and is an important part of our physical planet today. This is great. And the fact that he thinks well of and admires what the WPA did, that's a very hopeful sign.
BILL MOYERS: What could Jack Lew do as Treasury secretary that would make you think he's a kindred spirit?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Campaign against this austerity obsession. We're not going to get a big new stimulus package, much as I would like to see it. No, we're not going to get it this year, anyway. But I'd like to see him saying when somebody says, "Well, we need to slash here, we need to slash there." And he would say "Why would we want to be doing that now? That's actually going to hurt the economy."
BILL MOYERS: But hasn't our economy changed so much since Franklin Roosevelt simply put people on the government payroll?
PAUL KRUGMAN: It's, economics, the underlying rules change a lot more slowly than people imagine. People look and they say, "Oh, you know, back then they were taking ocean liners and now we fly jet airplanes." Or, "Back then we didn't have a global economy." Actually, we did. It's a little bit fancier now. But the basic rules are not are not much changed. It takes hundreds of years for those to change a whole lot. And this is, I can pretty easily assemble a bunch of headlines from the 1930s and they will sound like they're right out of today's headlines. This is the same kind of animal that we confronted in the '30s. This is depression economics. And the nature of the solution is not really very different now from what it was then.
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean, depression economics?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Well, two things really. One is, a recession is when the economy's going down. A depression is when the economy is down. So, you know, the U.S. economy was actually expanding through most of the 1930s, after a terrible big slump at the beginning and another slump later in the '30s. And then it was expanding in between. But we call that whole episode the Great Depression because it was all a period of high unemployment and a lot of suffering.
And, of course, we're in that now. It's not as bad as the Great Depression. You know, it's a great recommendation. Not as bad as the Great Depression. It's terrible. We have a persistently depressed economy, persistent lack of jobs. So in that sense, it's a depression. And there's also a more technical meaning. Depression economics is when the normal things you do to boost the economy, have the Federal Reserve cut interest rates a little bit, are no longer available or effective. It's a situation where the normal rules of what you-- of economic policy, have to be put on hold, and you really need to do extraordinary stuff.
BILL MOYERS: Well, the Fed has kept the interest late very low. And it has made a big difference, has it?
PAUL KRUGMAN: I think it actually has. If they hadn't kept the interest rate low, things would be much, much worse. Meaning--
BILL MOYERS: More people out to work.
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right. We, you know, this is not as bad as the Great Depression. Again, our famous last words. But part of the reason is that the Fed did learn something from the 1930s. It's learned that raising interest rates to stabilize the price of gold is a really bad idea in times like this. But the trouble is that zero, which is as low as it can get, is not low enough. And we actually know pretty well what you need to do.
BILL MOYERS: The other side of it is that people have been told so long, "Save money. Save money. Americans were not saving." Now if they save money, they make no money from their savings.
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right. And, actually the truth is right now saving hurts us. It's because what, another way, yet another way to think about depression economics, depression economics is a situation where the total amount that people want to save is less than the amount that businesses are willing to invest. You can think of that as being the result, a lot of it is because of this overhang of personal household debt from the past.
We had a housing bubble that burst, leaving us with too much construction. We have a financial system that's disrupted. But all of that leads to the fact that there's, the amount that businesses are willing to invest is less than the amount that collectively we all want to save, including corporations that are trying to retain earnings.
Which means that we're awash in excess savings. And if you decide to save more, it's not actually going to help society. I mean, things add up. If there's a crucial, one crucial thing to understand about all this it is that the global economy, money moves around in a circle. And my spending is your income, and your spending is my income. And if all of us try to spend less because we want to save more, we don't succeed. All we end up doing is creating a global depression.
BILL MOYERS: So your prescription in this book, and the book is an argument for the prescription, is that the government should spend more so that people can buy more. In other words, creating demand that will drive the economy. That's the chief argument in here.
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right. There are some other things you can do. Debt relief, where you can do it, will help because it will make people able to spend more. There're some things that the, maybe the Federal Reserve can do, even though interest rates are zero. But the core thing, the thing that we know works, the thing that all the evidence of history says works in a situation like this is the private sector won't spend, government can step in and provide the spending that we need in order to keep this economy afloat.
BILL MOYERS: As you know, there is an argument on the other side that says that Roosevelt, in spending in the '30s, did not really bring us out of the Depression. It was, and you acknowledge this in the book, the war, in which so much money was spent, you couldn't help but put people to work.
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right. But the fact that it was a war that finally got the U.S. government to spend enough is not an argument against spending. It's an argument about politics. It's saying that then, as now, lots of people were saying, "Oh, it would be irresponsible to spend," and it wasn't until something external came along that the political restraints were released.
And then, we didn't, we actually were, we had recovered from the Great Depression before Pearl Harbor, because the U.S. economy really went to war in 1940. And presto. I mean, lots of people said, "Oh, spending more can't produce recovery." And then we started our military buildup because war had broken out in Europe. And suddenly, we had recovery.
I made it as a joke, but if we discovered a threat from space aliens and decided that to deal with that threat, we needed to actually, somehow or other we needed to do a lot of infrastructure spending. We needed to build roads and high-speed rail. We would have full employment.
BILL MOYERS: By full employment, you mean?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Something like 5 percent unemployment.
BILL MOYERS: There essentially will always be a certain number of people who are not working for one reason or another.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Yeah. It's a dynamic economy. There's always going to be companies failing. There's always going to be people quitting a job and taking some time to find a new one. There's a lot of friction in the economy. So the fact of the matter is that normal, a normally pretty full employment economy is still going to have 5 percent measured unemployment. That's okay. But there's a world of difference between that and right now the official number is in the high sevens. But a lot of measures suggest it's a lot worse than that. I mean, and most important, we have four million who've been out of work for more than a year, which is unprecedented since the 1930s.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, you write that we are in a depression that is essentially gratuitous. We don't need to be suffering so much pain and destroying so many lives.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Gratuitous in the sense that there's nothing, the only obstacles to putting people to work, to having those lives restored, to producing hundreds of billions, probably 900 billion a year or so of extra valuable stuff in our economy, is in our minds.
If I could somehow convince the members of Congress and the usual suspects that deficit spending, for the time being, is okay, and that what we really need is a big job creation program. And let's worry about the deficit after we've had a solid recovery, it would all be over. It would be no problem at all, which is what, that's the lesson of 1940, 1941.
BILL MOYERS: Which is?
PAUL KRUGMAN: You can find all kinds of people explaining what was fundamentally wrong with the U.S. economy in 1940, that technology makes it impossible, workers don't have the right skill. Then along came a war in Europe and we started spending. Actually, at that point, spending a lot on infrastructure because we were getting ready for a war. And all of a sudden--
BILL MOYERS: Building harbors, building all kinds of--
PAUL KRUGMAN: And camps, training camps, there are a lot--
BILL MOYERS: --training--
PAUL KRUGMAN: The first thing that happened actually was a lot of construction spending on the giant new camps that the Army was going need. And all of a sudden, all of those unemployable workers turned out to be extremely productive, if you gave them a job. All of those, you know, total inability to get the economy moving turned out to be totally easy to get the economy moving. And we're basically in that situation right now. All the productive capacity is there. All that's lacking is the intellectual clarity and the political will.
BILL MOYERS: You make this so clear in the book, that's why I recommended that President Obama read this book as the one book I would like to see him read before the inauguration next week. If he read it, what would you hope he would fasten on?
PAUL KRUGMAN: I would hope that he would fasten on the notion, you know, he faces real political constraint. So we understand, he can't just pass legislation. But that the most important thing, his policy priority right now should be doing whatever he can to at least move in the direction of the kinds of policies that we want for full employment, that we need for full employment. And that the obsessions of Washington about a grand bargain on the deficit are really pretty much beside the point right now. That, if given a choice between doing something that will help the economy in the next two years, and something that will allegedly settle our budget problems for all, you know, for all time, which is wouldn't, that he should go for the stuff that will help the economy now. That he should not bend on that point.
BILL MOYERS: I can imagine that if you were sitting across the table with him, he might reply, "Look, Krugman, we've got a recovery coming on. Jobs are being created more steadily than ever. Measured unemployment is falling. Households are shaking off their burden of debt. I can see light at the end of the tunnel. I don't think this is the time to do what you're saying."
PAUL KRUGMAN: I think he might have said that two, three years ago. I don't think that president, you know, we happen to have a very intelligent man as president. He's for real. And he does understand. You can have real discussions with him. And I think he understands that, although things have improved some. We actually have had some progress on the economy in the past year. It's a glacial pace, compared with the way we should be. You can do this various ways. But if you think about the plunge that we took and you look at measures like the labor force, a fraction of prime age workers employed, whatever, we have maybe made up a quarter of the ground we lost in that great plunge in 2008, 2009. And it'll take years and years to get back to anything that looks like prosperity at this rate.
BILL MOYERS: What makes this a depression? You know, my generation remembers the photographs of those long lines of people looking for jobs, men and women both. Remembers the sad eyes, the hungry stomachs. Remembers that men were becoming so desperate they were becoming militant. But today, even though you say the situation, in terms of joblessness, is like the 1930s, you can't obviously, you can't transparently look around and see the evidence of a depression.
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right. It's, and partly that it's not as bad. So by modern concepts the Great Depression had unemployment rates that were as high as 20something percent by modern measures. And even in 1937, when things had improved, before we went into the second leg of the Great Depression, it was still probably about a nine percent unemployment rate by modern standards. And we've got a seven point something, eight percent, whatever. So things are not as bad. But I think a lot of it is just that the optics have changed.
BILL MOYERS: Optics?
PAUL KRUGMAN: The optic, the misery is there. I mean, is there anybody, I guess if you live in very rarified circles you don't know people who are desperate right now. But I live in pretty rarified circles and I do. I know, I have relatives, friends people I know who have, men my age who've lost jobs and see no prospect of getting another job and are just desperately trying to hang in there until they can collect their social security and get on Medicare. There are young people whose lives have collapsed. You know, they graduate and there's nothing there.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, you make a very powerful point in here of the impact of being out of work now on the lifetime career of a young person who has no job at the moment.
PAUL KRUGMAN: We have pretty good evidence on, you know, how long does it take to make up for the fact that you happen to graduate from college into a bad labor market. And the answer is forever. You will never recover.
BILL MOYERS: How so, what do you mean?
PAUL KRUGMAN: You will never get, you'll miss years getting onto the career ladder. By the time you get a chance to get a job that makes any sense, you know, that makes any use of your skills, you will already be tarred as somebody, "Well, you're 28 years old and you haven't held a responsible position?" "Well, yeah, I couldn't because there were no jobs." It just shadows your whole life. And it's very clear in the evidence from past recessions, which have been nowhere near as bad as this one.
The other thing I think I want to say here is that we have, in some ways, made things more civilized but also more invisible. Somebody said that food stamps are the soup kitchens of the modern depression. That there're a lot of people who would be standing in line to get that soup, who are instead, and it's a good thing, who are instead getting, I guess it's now called SNAP, Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program, but who are getting those debit cards, and are getting essential food stuffs. And they're at the grocery store and they look like anybody else. But the fact of the matter is they are still as desperate, they're getting by day to day with the aid of a trickle of government aid, just like the people who were on, standing in line at the soup kitchens in the '30s, but they're not visible. They, we don't have guys selling apples in street corners partly because, you know, the city licensing wouldn't allow that anymore.
But we do have, again, we've got four million people who've been out of work for more than a year. The U.S. social system is not designed to take care of somebody who's been out of work. We have unemployment insurance that's intended to deal with short spells of unemployment. So there's an enormous amount of misery, but it is mostly hidden.
BILL MOYERS: So that's why you refer to it, even though the optics have changed, as a quote "Vast, unnecessary catastrophe"?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Yeah. The amount of damage that's being done is enormous. The amount of suffering of people is enormous. And if it isn't out there, visible on the streets, if it's dispersed across a suburban you know, if you see a house with a for sale sign that's been sitting there for a while, you may not know the story about the family that was driven from its house because they, one or both spouses lost jobs and couldn't find others. Or, and they were foreclosed on. But it's a real story, all the same. And there's lots of that going around. And none of this needs to be happening.
BILL MOYERS: And you argue that this could actually be solved in two years?
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right. And that's not a number plucked out of thin air. That's a guess at how long it would take to get a serious spending program going. And we could actually make a lot of difference in it even quicker than that because the fact of the matter is, far from having effective job creation program, we've actually been pulling back. We've seen state and local governments lay off hundreds of thousands of school teachers. We've seen public investment in basic stuff like road repair cut way back. If we just went back to normal rates of filling potholes and normal rates of employment of school teachers, that could be done in months.
BILL MOYERS: You wonder why, given the suffering, Congress and the White House haven't acted.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Well, there are I think two, two levels of opposition. And one of them is just raw politics. We have a powerful political movement in this country that has a longstanding goal of rolling back all of the social programs, all the safety net that we've created. They want smaller government. They want reduced public services. Even the idea of public schools is very much under attack. They want it all to be switched to a system of vouchers. And they see this, you and I see a disaster, they see an opportunity. Here we have cash strapped state and local government. Good. Forced to cut back in government. They don't want to do anything that will make it easier for them to, for government as we know it to continue. That movement controls one political party. And that political party controls one house of Congress. And that is enough to stand in the way of a lot of things we ought to be doing. Then there's the second level, which is this odd coalescence of, I picked up the phrase from other people. Actually, from the blogger Duncan Black. "Very Serious People," capital V, capital S, capital P.
BILL MOYERS: You're always writing that these Very Serious People. Who are they?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Yeah. The notion that someone, well, you can look are your random set of, you know Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson would be the quintessential Very Serious People. The editorial, practically the whole op-ed page, not all of them, but most of "The Washington Post." People for whom this, it's axiomatic that the budget deficit is the most important problem. And that what we really, really need to do right now at a time of mass unemployment is worry about the debt to GDP ratio ten years from now. And it's a very hard thing to crack, partly because it's not actually a rational argument. You very rarely, very rarely see on the Sunday talk shows, people asking, "Why exactly are you so concerned about the deficit right now?" That's sort of a given. That's a starting point. Everybody serious understands that, except that if you ask them why exactly, they can't give you a very good answer.
BILL MOYERS: What is the answer?
PAUL KRUGMAN: It's partly that this is, it sounds serious. Never you know, never underestimate the importance of just plain what comes across. Start so it's partly just it sounds serious, it's the kind of thing that people who wear good suits are likely to talk about. Partly it is actually, of course, a deliberate pressure campaign.
BILL MOYERS: For example, Pete Peterson, Nixon's Secretary of the Commerce, billionaire several times over has set up this Fix the Debt campaign and is said to be putting half a billion dollars into trying to influence the public.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Yeah, actually it's not just Fix the Debt, that's just the latest incarnation. There's also the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, there's the newspaper "The Fiscal Times," there's several others. It's a whole portfolio. They all are Peterson Foundation money at the roots, but they're all out there. And yeah, serious attempts to influence public debate are not, by and large, a very lavishly funded enterprise.
BILL MOYERS: But in this case?
PAUL KRUGMAN: But in this case, you've got so half a billion dollars, $500 million of spending with one agenda is going to have a huge impact. You know, policy intellectuals, by and large come cheap. A few hundred thousand in consulting contracts could do a lot there.
BILL MOYERS: Do you think some of them are serious about the debt leading to a loss of confidence on the part of investors in foreign governments? I mean, even three years ago Barack Obama expressed concern about the long term debt and the confidence of people in the U.S. government. Take a listen.
BARACK OBAMA: There may be some tax provisions that can encourage businesses to hire sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines. So we're taking a look at those. I think it is important, though, to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the US economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.
PAUL KRUGMAN: I remember that well. And at the time it was going on, I do occasionally find myself in meetings with Very Serious People myself. I guess I am personally one now and then. There was this widespread view among people, and not all of it venal, not all of it self-interested, that somehow things were hanging by a thread. That any day now we could have a run on U.S. government debt, which was wrong.
But, okay, I can see how people could for a while have believed that. But a lot of time has gone by since then. And I hope that at least some people have learned better. But it's amazing how little the continued failure of these warnings to actually be vindicated by anything has…how little of that's actually affected the debate.
And there's a special issue here, which I've actually tried to get across now, and I find that I get resistance even from people who are, I would've hoped were more flexible. It's even very hard to tell the story about how this loss of confidence is supposed to work. I mean, it's the United States is not like a European country that doesn't have its own currency.
The U.S. government cannot run out of cash unless Congress prevents it, you know creates an entirely self-inflicted shortage through the debt ceiling. How is it exactly that we're supposed to have this crisis that leads to a double dip recession? It really doesn't even make sense as a story. And yet it is one of those things that people say and by and large, are not contradicted on.
BILL MOYERS: We keep hearing from the right that we're here on the path to becoming Greece, and you say that that's impossible?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Yeah. We, even if, suppose that people decided, investors decided they don't like U.S. government debt, it can't cause a funding crisis because the U.S. government prints money. It's even hard to see how it can drive up interest rates because the Fed sets interest rates at the short end, and why exactly would the long run rates go up if you don't expect the Fed to raise rates? It could lead to a weakening of the U.S. dollar against other currencies.
But that's actually a good thing. That would make U.S. exports more competitive. That would actually boost our economy. So it's, actually impossible to tell that story, as far as I can tell. And yet, it's not, again we're mostly not in the realm of rational discourse here. It's one of those things where people say it, they hear other people saying it. And they don't actually try to work it through.
And it plays a big role, I'm sorry, in influencing our public discussion. Interestingly, people who actually have money on the line, that is people who are buying bonds, just keep on driving U.S. interest rates ever lower. So actual investors don't care about this stuff. But our political class does.
BILL MOYERS: Why don't they care?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Because first of all, because I think at some level investors understand what I'm saying. That it's very difficult to see any reason why the Fed would raise short term rates, which is controls for years to come. And in that case, long term debt even at a pretty low interest rate is a reasonable investment. Hard to see how a financial crisis actually develops against the United States, U.S. government, which is in this you know, has all the luxury of printing its own currency.
And investments are always about compared to what, right? If you if you say, "Well, the U.S. is a dangerous place to invest," I don't think it is, but particularly where is the safe place that people are going to invest? You know, what is this other asset that they're going to buy? And it doesn't really exist.
BILL MOYERS: You say we're in a liquidity trap. I don't understand that.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Basically, a liquidity trap is we're, back up for a second. How do we normally deal with a recession? How do we deal with a garden variety recession like the 2001 after the dot com bubble burst, or 1991? The answer is that basically the Fed, the Federal Reserve goes out there and prints money.
Or strictly speaking credits banks, you know, credit banks with that extra reserves and buys treasury bills. And that normally starts a chain of events where, okay, the banks have got extra reserves, they lend them out. They, that drives down interest rates, leads to a whole series of events, which ends up with the economy picking up some steam. And what the Fed is doing in that case, it's supplying extra liquidity to the system.
PAUL KRUGMAN: But now we're in a situation, we're awash in liquidity. We've already got, I mean, interest rates are zero. And so anybody you say, "Well, we're going to give you some more cash and you're going to go lend it out," and banks, everybody's going to say, "Well, why would I want to do that? I mean, interest rates are zero. It's, there's no particular incentive for me not to just sit on this cash."
So you pour this extra liquidity into the economy and it just sits there. And that's the liquidity trap. It's a situation in which the ordinary monetary policy thing doesn't work.
A side consequence of that is it also means that if the government goes out and borrows more, it's not going to drive up interest rates because there's all this cash sitting out there looking for a place to go.
So the rules change. And liquidity traps are really rare. I mean, we had one in the 1930s and we've had another one since 2008. And aside from that, we had one in Japan in the 1990s, and that's about it. But when they happen, boy, they change all the rules. You find yourself in a different universe for economics.
BILL MOYERS: And they're not putting people to work.
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right. A liquidity trap is a situation where the economy can stay depressed and there's no natural, certainly no fast natural route to recovery.
BILL MOYERS: So why would you be calling for more spending, given that reality?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Oh, but that's the point, then the equation, what we're looking for always, the problem…Basically all recessions are a problem of not enough spending in the economy. There are a few exceptions, basically, what we call a recession is, a case where there's not enough spending, and so there's not enough jobs. Normally, however, you can deal with that in a very narrow technocratic fashion, which is that the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates and stuff happens.
Now that doesn't work because we're in a liquidity trap. And so, this is where you say, "Okay, we need something else that's going to work, and it's very hard to come up with anything that is clearly effective, other than having the government go out and spend the money that the private sector won't." And this is why it, you know, this is, monetary policy is the aspirin of economic ailments. Take a couple whenever you're feeling that you have a headache. Now we had the over the counter remedy doesn't work and we need the, the heavy duty prescription medicine, and that's what I'm arguing for.
BILL MOYERS: Interesting you say that because I tried to condense to one sentence the message and argument of your book. And I wrote down, "The answer is simple. Increase spending and boost consumption because the fundamental problem at the root of this crisis is a lack of demand."
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's it. Now you can say that all crises', or most crises' anyway, most recessions are a lack of demand. But this is an intractable lack of demand. And so, we, we need we need government action of a type that most, at any point during the past 70 years, except this one, I would have said, "No, let's leave it up to my former colleague, Ben Bernanke." But he can't do the job right now. And so, we need the government.
BILL MOYERS: And if the president were sitting across the table from you and asking, "Where would you spend this money, Paul?" What would your answer be?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Right now it's easy because right now we can do it very quickly simply by restoring the spending cuts that have already happened. If you gave me unlimited carte blanche in terms of spending, I would want to go beyond that. I'd want to talk about and pretty straightforward things, even so. We have you know, fix the sewer lines. I mean, we have, we have a lot of, a lot of basic infrastructure needs that are worth doing in any case.
But right now you can get a quick boost just by rehiring those school teachers and filling those potholes. We are something like $300 billion a year short of the spending that we should be undertaking just for the normal business of government. And that extra $300 billion a year would be a really big deal for the economy if we could do it right now.
BILL MOYERS: Would it bring us to what you call full employment?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Probably not. Probably bring us down to an unemployment rate that was more in the 6 to 6.5 percent.
BILL MOYERS: How much would it add to the long term deficit?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Actually, nothing to the long term deficit, or almost nothing because this would not be a permanent set of measures. This would be something we'd do now. It would add headline suppose we spend $300 billion a year right now, additional. That's not $300 billion a year in extra debt because it's, the economy will be stronger, which means more revenue, which means less spending on unemployment benefits.
So it's probably under $200 billion a year in immediate borrowing. And there's a lot of reason to think that would actually, having a stronger economy now would actually strengthen the economy in the long run as well. Or put it this way, the other way, that having a really weak economy now is damaging our future and not just our present. Think about all college graduates who will never get the job they all should get.
That's not just harm for them, that's a future economy that is weaker than it should've been because it's wasting a lot of our talent. And there's a pretty good case, actually a pretty strong case, that if you think about the long run fiscal impact, spending more right now is actually positive even in terms of the long run budget situation because a stronger future economy will mean stronger revenue down the pike.
And the debt we incur right now, well, you know, the interest rate on U.S. long term debt is under 2 percent. Inflation protected U.S. long term debt has a negative interest rate. There's almost no, there's even, on purely fiscal terms, it's arguable that we should be spending more just to strengthen our long run budget position.
BILL MOYERS: Is there a limit to how much we can keep borrowing?
PAUL KRUGMAN: There may be, although all that we know, all of the evidence says it's a lot further away than conventional wisdom has it. I mean, like a lot of people, including Ben Bernanke, I got into all of these things by looking at Japan in the '90s. And Japan famously has run deficits year after year. And it has a level of debt that is about twice what we've got as a share of GDP.
And people have been predicting financial catastrophe for Japan year after year for ten years or more. They've had downgrades. Their debt was downgraded in 2002 by the major rating agencies. And everybody who believed those warnings and everybody -- has lost a lot of money. So it turns out that if you're an advanced country with its own currency and a reasonably stable government, you have a lot of running room on these things.
So am I worried? Yeah, I mean, I am worried about the U.S. fiscal situation 20 years from now. We do have a problem of health care costs and so on. But, you know, I'm worried about a lot of other things 20 years as well. I'm not sure that even if you take that long term perspective, that the budget should be at the top of your list of things to be afraid of.
I'm a lot more afraid, actually, of the great -- the entire southwest of the United States turning into a dustbowl because of climate change, right? So sure, by all means, let's think about it. But it should not be dominating our policy discussion now.
BILL MOYERS: As you know, we're heading toward another knockdown, drag out, shoot it out at the O.K. Corral fight over raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. President Obama has already said he will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling. Here's what he said.
BARACK OBAMA: I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed. Let me repeat. We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred.
BILL MOYERS: And here's the response he got the next day from Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
PAT TOOMEY: Our opportunity here is on the debt ceiling. The president's made it very clear; he doesn't even want to have a discussion about it, because he knows this is where we have leverage. We Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a temporary partial government shutdown, which is what that could mean, and insist that we get off the road to Greece, because that's the road we're on right now. We only can solve this problem by getting spending under control and restructuring the entitlement programs. There is no tax solution to this; it's a spending solution. And if this president doesn't want to go there, we're going to have to force it and we're going to have to force it over the debt ceiling.
PAUL KRUGMAN: This is a guy walking into a crowded room and saying, "I have a bomb strapped to my chest, and if you don't give me what I want, I'm going to blow up everybody, including myself." And is that a credible threat? Well, there're some pretty crazy people there. And it might be that they're willing to do it.
But by the same token, Obama cannot get into this because then you have government in the hands of -- never mind the Constitution, the government is run by whoever is most willing to wreak havoc with our whole system of -- with the nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be blackmailed into spending cuts, partly because blackmail should not be part of how the U.S. operates, and partly because spending cuts would be disastrous right now. So Obama's right to say he doesn't negotiate. I'd like to know exactly what he will do if it turns out that there is not a quorum of sane people in the Republican party.
BILL MOYERS: If you were Secretary of the Treasury, what would you recommend he do?
PAUL KRUGMAN: I'm for whatever gimmick works. So the most dignified is to say, "Look, this is ridiculous. You are giving the president -- effectively Congress is giving the president inconsistent instructions. It's passed bills mandating spending. It's passed bills that give us inadequate revenue to cover that spending which requires that we borrow. And then you're saying, 'I can't borrow.' Well, you know.
And my reading of the Constitution is I have to obey the due legislative process and go ahead and do this borrowing to meet the bills that we've already incurred, as the president said." That's sort of what people are calling the Fourteenth Amendment solution, that basically it's unconstitutional to give into this debt limit thing. I guess that's your best solution. They don't think that that's workable then you go for anything at hand. And there is this wonderful bit about the platinum coin.
BILL MOYERS: I don't understand that.
PAUL KRUGMAN: In a 1997 act amended in 2000 which covers issuance of coins and stuff like that. There's one clause that says that the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the right to mint and issue platinum coins in any denomination that he so chooses. Clearly, the intent was commemorative coins. You're going to strike a coin to commemorate whatever, Mother's Day.
But it doesn't say that. And as far as legal scholars have been able to make out, there's no reason why the Secretary of the Treasury can't order the minting of a coin that says this coin is worth $1 trillion, which need bear no relationship to the actual value of the platinum in it. It has to be platinum, however. And walk that coin over to the Federal Reserve.
Deposit it in and have the Federal Reserve create a bank account for the federal government based on that coin of whatever. It could be one coin for $1 trillion, it could be a thousand coins of a billion each, whatever. And then the government can pay its bills by drawing on that bank account. And it's crazy, it's an accounting gimmick, but then this whole thing is crazy. And if that lets you bypass this nonsense about the debt limit, fine.
There are other routes. I mean, it's possible the government could issue coupons that look like debt and function like debt, but says, "No, they're not debt." They could say, "This -- we have no legal obligation to pay this. We are, in fact, going to pay it, but we have no legal obligation to pay it." That's another alternative. They could--
BILL MOYERS: This is what you'd call--
PAUL KRUGMAN: I'd call it moral obligation coupons.
BILL MOYERS: Moral obligation because the government is morally obligated to pay that at some point, right? That's what--
PAUL KRUGMAN: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: --you mean by that?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Yeah. So, but it's a moral obligation. We can say it's not a legal obligation so that -- you know, all of this is of course, this is all word games. But then that's not to play games would be irresponsible at this point.
BILL MOYERS: So you would encourage, if you were Secretary of the Treasury, the president to call the Republican bluff?
PAUL KRUGMAN: Yes. I think, now, I think you probably don't commit to doing that until we actually hit the limit. You say what the president is now saying. There is no alternative but for Congress to do the responsible thing and raise this debt limit.
But you don't rule out these alternatives and you make sure that the Republicans know you haven't ruled it out so that it stands ready, and in fact it's what you do. Hostage negotiations, you have to -- you have to have some credible alternative to giving into the hostage takers demands, and that's where we are right now.
BILL MOYERS: You've confessed before to an occasional sinking feeling that you can count on President Obama to wimp out. And that's your term, "to wimp out" when it matters.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Yeah. The 2011 debt ceiling fight was deeply disheartening because he should not have negotiated on the debt ceiling at all. Same argument as now. This is not how you do it. It is not a legitimate tactic of politics to threaten to destroy the country if you don't get what you want. And people who make that demand have no standing. You should not give them anything.
But he did. He actually did, in fact, make some significant concessions on spending, in order to get a rise in the debt limit. He blinked a little bit on the fiscal cliff. Not as badly as some of us feared, but he did not, in fact, hold out for the full revenue package. And so, some of us are worried. Now, I have to say, I mean, I'm reading my own stage directions here.
People like me are, in part, going after him, warning about the wimping out thing in order to turn that into a self-denying prophesy. That the idea is to make a situation where the president will be aware what people will say about him if he does give in here so it doesn't happen.
BILL MOYERS: More than many economists I read, you keep politics at center stage in writing about the economy. Those are two different narratives in one sense. And yet, you intertwine them as you keep writing and analyzing our situation today. Why is that?
PAUL KRUGMAN: I think we've reached a moment in our history where the extreme nature of our politics and the extreme nature of the economic situation has converged. You know, here we are, on one side we have a once-in-three-generations economic crisis. Right, this is -- starting in 2008, we've been experiencing the crisis that has haunted the nightmares of macro economists since the 1930s. And here it is again.
And this is as dramatic as it gets. It's a situation where you really have to throw out the business as usual. And on the other side, you have this extreme political situation, where a radical movement has taken over one of our two great political parties. And does not-- does not practice politics as usual. Anyone who talks about, "Well, we should make deals the way we used to. What about the Tax Reform of 1986? Why can't we do that again?" And the answer is, well, that might make sense to you if you've been in a Buddhist monastery for the past 20 years.
But that's not today's Republican party. You can't make that kind of deal with them. And so, how can you write about the economics? If you write about economics right now and implicitly adopt the perspective, "Well, let's get reasonable people together in Washington and reach a solution here," you know, you're paying no attention to reality. And, of course, if you talk about the politics without talking about the economics, you're also missing everything. So how could I not be writing about both?
BILL MOYERS: You begin one chapter of your book with a quote from your intellectual mentor, John Maynard Keynes, who writes in his masterpiece The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, "The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live--" and this was the '20s and '30s, "are its failure to provide for full employment. And its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes." Well, we don't have full employment today and we have gross inequality in income. So which is failing us, capitalism or democracy or both?
PAUL KRUGMAN: I guess I have a -- here's where I guess I am an optimist, which is that I believe that you can fix both capitalism and democracy. Not to produce a utopia, but to produce a workable solution. And the reason I believe that is we did that for a pretty long stretch.
Western economies in 1933 and western societies in 1933 were in a pretty horrible state. Mass unemployment, gross inequality, collapse of democracy in a number of places. And in the end, by the time 1950 had rolled around, we had managed to create a more equitable, not totally equal, but a more equitable society, with reasonably full employment.
And that solution lasted for half a century, which is all you can ever expect in human affairs. Nothing is permanent. So I do believe that we can do that again. So it's not that we have to ditch capitalism. I think a market economy is -- this is probably Churchill, right, it's the worst solution except for all the others. And democracy is the worst system, except for all the others.
But it's going to take some work. It's not -- the idea that you can just let markets rip and that you don't need to worry about the state of your democracy, that's wrong. But I'm actually, in a way, a conservative on these things. But a conservative, not -- what we now call conservatives are actually radicals who want to tear down the structure that we built, starting with FDR. And I want to rebuild something like that, a modernized, a twenty-first century version of that system. But it's not out of reach. It's not something that can't be done.
BILL MOYERS: Paul Krugman, End This Depression Now. Thank you very much for this conversation.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Thank you.


text:
Product photography and illustrations have been reproduced as accurately as print and web technologies permit. To ensure highest satisfaction, we suggest you view an actual sample from your dealer for best color, wood grain and finish representation.
Toffee Black Glaze cabinet finish is a light toned, milky brown with the slightest of cool red undertones, topped with a true black glaze.


text:
From Microsoft:
Today, Microsoft announced that 20 new third-party feed partners, and 3 new contacts partners will be rolling out globally on Windows Live this week, giving 500 million+ Windows Live customers more ways to share their lives online lives and communicate with the people they care about.
What's New:
- Feeds partners available to consumers this week at home.live.com include Facebook, Digg and SmugMug.
- New contacts partners, MySpace, hi5, and Tagged, join Facebook and LinkedIn this week in allowing Windows Live customers to reciprocally invite contacts between Windows Live and these social networks.
- In the coming months, MySpace customers will be able to share activities and updates from MySpace with their Windows Live network as MySpace joins Windows Live as a feeds partner.
With a total of over 30 leading global and regional web companies now available on Windows Live, customers can easily share their activities from across the Web.
Related: Q&A with Windows Live general manager Brian Hall:
We're releasing an important update to Windows Live that's really about two things ...
We've added 20 new third-party content partners that you can integrate with Windows Live, bringing the total number of third-party content partners to more than 30. According to the latest data from comScore, there are more than 600 million active users on the various blogging sites, social networks and photo sharing sites that Windows Live has partnered with, and many of these people also make up the 500 million users on Windows Live. This update will make it easier for Windows Live customers to connect with their activities on these other sites and share them with friends in their Windows Live network.
We're working with three new contacts partners — MySpace, hi5 and Tagged —so you can easily invite your contacts from third-party sites into Windows Live and vice versa, rather than having a different set of friends and contacts on each site.


text:
Youth unemployment among 15-22 year-olds has risen more substantially in 2009 than among 23-64 year-olds. Unemployment rose rapidly among young people without a basic qualification.Read publication
This Quarterly Report of the National Youth Monitor for the second quarter of 2009 places Dutch youngsters in a European perspective. The comparisons are based on topics included on the website of the National Youth monitor.Read publication
This summary outlines the key results of the annual report 2008, based on figures from the website.Read publication
This report describes the purpose, contents and background of the National Youth Monitor. It also contains an demographic overview of children and young people in the Netherlands.Read publication


text:
Crete (Kriti), is a Greek island in the Mediterranean Sea and, with an area of 8,336 km2, is the largest island in that sea. The oldest evidence for human habitation dates back to the pre-Pottery era, around 6100 - 5700 B.C. and was discovered in Knossos, later the capital of the Minoan Civilization. United with Greece in December 1913, the current capital of Crete is Heraklion (also spelled Iraklion).
Part of the Eastern Roman, Byzantine, Empire until 1204 and the Western Christian sack of Constantinople, the island was allocated to the Genoese but sold to the Venetians for 1000 silver marks. The Venetians occupied the island and initially tried to impose Roman Catholicism on the Greek Orthodox inhabitants. This imposition, and the high taxes that the Venetiians brought with them, was resisted by the Cretans and the early Venetian rule was marked by a series of revolts against the conquerors. The later Venetian period was generally more stable.
In 1669, after a twenty three-year struggle, the island finally fell into the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman rule was marked by an almost continuous series of uprisings as the Cretans fought against their Muslim rulers. Notable events during these uprisings included the mass suicide of the Cretan rebels in the Monastery of Arkadi in 1866 and, later that year, the evacuation of Christian refugees from the south coast of the island by ships of the Royal Navy, French, Prussian and Russian Navies; evacuations carried out in breach of the Ottoman naval embargo in the island.
In 1897, with the total collapse of the Ottoman administration and amid scenes of violent ethnic cleansing as Christian Cretans sought revenge on Muslim Cretans for the latter's support of the Ottoman regime and Cretan Muslims sought to maintain their favoured economic position, the island was occupied by forces from Italy, France, Britain and Russia. It then became a semi-autonomous state within the Ottoman Empire, its ruler being appointed by Greece but having to be approved by the Sublime Porte. The island finally achieved 'enosis,' union with Greece, following the end of the Second Balkan War in 1913.
The island was invaded by German forces in May 1941. Spearheaded by paratroops, Operation Merkuri, though successful in gaining control of Crete, was a disaster for the German forces. In spite of the fact that the Greek Dictator Metaxas had disarmed the islanders because of their opposition to his right wing rule, the islanders rose up against the invaders with whatever weapons they had at hand and, aiding the Greek, New Zealand and British troops present, made the Germans pay dearly for every metre of ground they gained. Over 4,000 paratroopers were killed and the German 7th Airborne Division was virtually wiped out. The effect of the German setback was such that Hitler ordered that no German paratroop assaults were ever to be launched again. The islanders continued to resist the Germans until the very end of the occupation, paying a high price as towns and villages, such as Kandanos and Floria, were wiped out and their populations executed in reprisal for partisan attacks.
Cretans continued to display their thirst for freedom after the war, the island being one of the major sources of opposition to the right wing military regime of the 'Colonels Junta' who ruled Greece from 1967 to 1974.
The island is now a major tourist and agricultural centre.
Notable features of Crete include the Samaria Gorge, the longest gorge in Europe, the Minoan remains at Knossos and the former leper colony at Spinalonga.
In Greek mythology, Crete was the home of the Minotaur, a beast with the head of a bull on the body of a man. According to Cretan legend Zeus, the King of the Gods, was born on the island. However, the ancient Greeks believed that Zeus was born on Mount Olympus in northern Greece and this dispute gave rise to the ancient Greek saying "All Cretans are liars."


text:
PHILADELPHIA -- Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen, facing criticism over comments published last week in which he expressed admiration for Fidel Castro, says he intends to fly back to Miami to answer in person for his statements about the Cuban leader.
Meanwhile, Major League Baseball is reviewing the situation, a source told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney.
Guillen told Time magazine for an article published last week that he loves Castro and respects him for staying in power so long. It's not the first time that he has praised Castro publicly. In a Men's Journal interview in 2008, Guillen was asked to name the toughest man he knows.
"Fidel Castro," he said. "He's a bull---- dictator and everybody's against him, and he still survives, has power. Still has a country behind him. Everywhere he goes they roll out the red carpet. I don't admire his philosophy. I admire him."
Guillen, who is from Venezuela but became a United States citizen in 2006, also praised controversial Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in 2005. He had appeared on the leader's radio show twice and when asked about it, he said: "Not too many people like the president. I do."
Guillen has since been critical of Chavez. During his first news conference as Marlins manager in September, he bristled at a suggestion he supports Chavez.
"Don't tell my wife that, because she hates that man. She hates him to death," Guillen said. "I supported Chavez? If I was supporting Chavez, do you think I would be manager of the Marlins? I never supported Chavez."
Guillen, speaking Monday in the Marlins' dugout before their afternoon game against the Philadelphia Phillies, said he felt "guilty" and "embarrassed" and wants to address questions personally. He planned to return to Miami after Monday's game and speak at a 10:30 a.m. ET news conference Tuesday at Marlins Park.
"I want to make everything clear what's going on. Then people can see me and know what I think," Guillen said. "I think it's the proper thing so people can see my eyes and ask every question they want to ask.
"I want to get the thing over with. I told the Marlins I want to fly (back) as soon as I can, and tomorrow's a day off," Guillen said. "I don't want to (talk about it) in Philadelphia. I want to be in Miami and clear everything up."
Guillen also said he doesn't want to limit his appearance in Miami to the media.
"I want the people there. Whoever feels about it, ask me any questions," he said. "I want you to ask what you ask, because I feel bad? Yes. I feel embarrassed? Yes."
A Cuban-American advocacy group in Miami, Vigilia Mambisa, has said it would boycott and demonstrate against Guillen until the Marlins fire him.
The Marlins subsequently issued a statement clarifying that the organization has no respect for Castro, calling him "a brutal dictator who has caused unthinkable pain for more than 50 years."
State Sen. Rene Garcia, chairman of the Florida Hispanic
Legislative Caucus, described Guillen's comments as appalling and
insulting. In a letter to Marlins president David Samson, Garcia
said he expects the Marlins to punish Guillen.
Shortstop and Cuban native Alexei Ramirez, who played for Guillen for four seasons with the White Sox, said his former manager deserves forgiveness.
"I think apologizing is a good first step," Ramirez said through a team translator. "I feel everyone has their opinion, but I also feel people should be forgiven. Hopefully it will be accepted."
Guillen said that when he read his comments Friday, he felt sick because he knew how people would react.
"I will apologize if I hurt somebody's feelings, or I hurt somebody's thought," Guillen told writers on Saturday. "I want them to know I'm against everything 100 percent -- I repeat it again -- the way this man [has been] treating people for the last 60 years."
On Monday, Guillen said he was not surprised by the reaction.
"No, not really. I talked to the media already in Cincinnati about it, and I expect this was going to happen. I feel badly, because I don't want to say [it was taken] out of context. I think it was kind of a cheap shot. But I've got to face it," Guillen told reporters.
Guillen also said he felt it's important to answer questions in person, rather than issue a statement.
"I don't want to make a statement, because I think when you make a statement it's a bunch of crap. I want people to look in my eyes, look in my face and see what's going on, tell them what the deal was," Guillen said.
"Like I said, I feel sad and (for) a couple days, I feel sick to my stomach, not because of what I did. Just because I know I hurt a lot of people."
The hardest part, Guillen said, has been apologizing to Cuban-American members of the Marlins' organization.
"The saddest part of this was to apologize to (the Marlins' Spanish-language broadcasters) Felo Ramirez and Yiki (Quintana). That was hard. And I did it, face to face. I just talked to (pitcher Jose) Contreras a couple of minutes ago. And Jose was laughing, kinda like, 'Don't worry about it.' But every Cuban-born and Cuban-born family that I know -- they know who I am."
The Marlins next play in Miami on Friday, when they will start a three-game series against the Houston Astros.
Guillen, a former major league shortstop, skippered the Chicago White Sox to a World Series title in 2005 -- the franchise's first since 1917. He left for Miami following last season, amid tensions with White Sox general manager Kenny Williams.
Guillen's comments have gotten him into trouble before. In 2006, he was fined and ordered to undergo sensitivity training by Major League Baseball after using a gay slur during a rant aimed at a Chicago-area newspaper columnist.
Jayson Stark is a senior baseball writer for ESPN.com. Information from ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney, ESPNChicago baseball reporter Bruce Levine and The Associated Press was used in this report.


text:
Negotiating a publishing contract can be difficult at the best of times. However, now that grant funding bodies such as the NHMRC are making it a requirement that resulting research publications be made publically available on open access, the negotiations around the publishing contract becomes even more important.
To make the potential negotiation process a little simpler the University of Sydney Library, in consultation with the Office of General Counsel, have developed an Addendum Generator which creates the addendum for you.
All you need to do is to complete the four fields on the form and the 'generator' will create the text. Then sign the form and add it to the original contract.
Essentially the addendum allows
You to:
- use, reproduce, distribute, create derivatives of the work in electronic, digital or print form in connection with your teaching, conference presentations, lectures, other scholarly works, and for all your academic and professional activities.
- authorise others to make, the final published version of the work available in digital form over the Internet,
Your institution to:
- provide an electronic version of the work to be made publicly available in an open access repository for any scholarly purpose only.
- authorise the NHMRC, the ARC or any other public research funding body to make a copy of the peer-reviewed manuscript of the work available for public access no later than 12 months after the official date of publication.
Next time you come to sign a publisher contract think about what you are signing and remember to not sign your rights away.
Sten Christensen, Repository Coordinator, Sydney eScholarship
E email@example.com


text:
In case you haven't heard, the Mission's iconic Giant Value building is closing and being converted into "market-value" condos. Here's what they will look like, next to the forthcoming renovation of the New Mission Theater:
[via Kwan Henmi Architecture]
Otto Venta recently snapped some shots from the current interior:
Over the past couple of weeks they have been liquidating their stock at 50% off, including the following near-luxury fragrances:
[photo via Chirp]
Even though I've only set foot in the building a handful of times, I've always admired the huge block letters on their facade and intimidating selection of 1970s deadstock goods at reasonable prices. What's it going to be like in a post-Giant Value world? Will our children's values not be as giant? Will the boxy condos stay true to the spirit of their ancestors and offer affordable housing? (Not-fucking-likely)
Check below for some of Mission Mission's Giant Value posts over the years. And what the hell, if Giant Value meant anything to you, please share your fondest or worst memories in the comments. Maybe you picked up a bottle of BOOS cologne and it sealed the deal on a first date you were nervous about. Perhaps you remember how devastated the community was when they switched the words from "VALUE GIANT" to "GIANT VALUE". Or how about that time Apple maps took you there when you were really trying to find the SF Giants ballpark?
Selected comments will be printed on a commemorative plaque to be installed in the sidewalk in front of the building. (Not-fucking-likely)


text:
etón FR100 Please also see
Please also see
|Discontinued Specialty Receivers
The etón Blackout Buddy is the essential emergency tool for every home. Designed to stay plugged into the wall for continuous charging and to be ready for any emergency, the Blackout Buddy's built-in LED light and AM/FM radio automatically turn on when the electricity goes out. The rechargeable battery provides enough power for hours of emergency AM/FM radio and light operation: 12-16 hours of LED light use, or 4-8 hours of radio use. The Blackout Buddy also serves as a convenient and functional everyday plug-in radio and light for any room in the home or office
The Super-Bright LED light provides illumination when you need it most and the AM/FM Radio helps you stay in tune with breaking news. The alarm feature wakes you up when you want (with or without power). The illuminated Multi-Function LCD Screen with clock glows a soft blue when plugged in, serving as a night light. The telescopic antenna helps you receive important local radio broadcasts and there is even an earphone jack. Only 3 x 5 x 1.4 inches, 10 ounces. Available in silver (shown above) or pearl white.
Copyright 2004-2015 Universal Radio, Inc.