Are you the jerk from the article? Oh no wait, he was brilliant. JK
Being a brilliant business person is identifying market trends and acting on them. Which means finding out what people want and delivering it to them at prices they can afford. To do this you need to get people with the right skills together on a voluntary basis by offering them compensation that they need to agree with.
In other words, it's up to the business person to get people together in such a way that everyone involved is benefiting and is better of than they would have been otherwise.
>Occupy Wall Street was the first/best civil protest we've had in *decades*!
This tells me you reside on the left side of the political spectrum. Because for all it's flaws, the Tea Party were united in that they wanted a balanced budget
As a person who is involved in hiring, we just want to get a sense of whether the position is right for you or whether you'll just flake out because you rather be doing something else. For example maybe in 5 years you expect to be a manager or a team leader but we don't expect openings. Or the opposite, maybe we do expect an opening and we are looking for someone with aspirations to become management so we can groom them for that position. Personally I like to see candidates achieve their objectives in our company. So if we can hire them on and both our goals align then both parties can potentially be satisfied or even happy.
It may seem like a stupid question but it's actually quite relevant. I guess relevance does depend on the job though.
Only 50 people to manage a huge center like that
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
-Murray N. Rothbard
>He's one of those fucking crazy idiots who thinks that economies magically regulate themselves.
Actually libertarians believe in what's called Public Choice Theory. Public choice is the application of economic principles to the political realm. You see some economists believe that somethings shouldn't be handled by the free-market so they advocate we place those industries in the hands of politicians. The problem with that implicit assumption that the incentives in the public realm are structured in a way that will give better result. Public choice explodes that assumption. The rampant corporatism in the US (and in other nations) drives that point in quite nicely. So it's not so much that markets do it well, it's that they do it less bad.
So my argument would be that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to think that those who believe in free-markets are doing wishful thinking. There is a lot of theory behind that statement.
But I'm compelled to say, it's much easier to attack the man then argue the facts. It will avoid me having to do any kind of research and it's easier emotionally to maintain my current worldview.
>And that's not to mention the literally thousands of jobs he would be cutting to serve his agenda.
Don't worry he'll be passing out bricks to break some windows to help stimulate the economy.
"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne