The executive order — which contains 72 initiatives — is striking in its scope and ambition, challenging the business practices of America’s enormous technology, health-care, agricultural and manufacturing firms while also aiming to shake up smaller sectors dominated by only a handful of companies, such as the hearing aid industry.
The heart of American capitalism is a simple idea: open and fair competition,” Biden said in remarks before signing the order, accompanied by several members of his Cabinet. “…Competition keeps the economy moving and keeps it growing. Fair competition is why capitalism has been the world’s greatest force for prosperity and growth.”
Read more at:
Biden’s bid to take on big business sets off battle over who holds power in U.S. economy
Showing posts with label prosperity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prosperity. Show all posts
7/9/21
4/25/19
EU-Caribbean Relations: Closer EU-Caribbean ties mean greater prosperity for all - by Bocchit Edmond
This month ministers and officials from across the Caribbean
assembled in Jamaica to discuss the future of our collective
relationship with the European Union.
This was the latest in a series of forums that have taken place in the past eighteen months, all with the aim of working toward a bolstered agreement that will further integrate our political and economic interests.
The current African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) agreement with the EU was signed in 2000 in Cotonou, Benin.
The eponymous agreement was designed to establish a comprehensive partnership, focused on three pillars: development cooperation, political cooperation, and economic and trade cooperation.
It has been successful in many areas, but the time has come to renew its purpose and for fresh engagement among our nations.
Much has changed over the past two decades for Caribbean nations as well as the EU.
While in 2000 there were only nine member states of the EU, there are now 28, which has radically changed the dynamic of the Union's influence in the world.
The global threats we share have also shifted.
Climate change, for example, which poses unmeasurable risk to the Caribbean, is a fight which is more urgent now than ever before.
Reasd Closer EU-Caribbean ties mean greater prosperity for all
This was the latest in a series of forums that have taken place in the past eighteen months, all with the aim of working toward a bolstered agreement that will further integrate our political and economic interests.
The current African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) agreement with the EU was signed in 2000 in Cotonou, Benin.
The eponymous agreement was designed to establish a comprehensive partnership, focused on three pillars: development cooperation, political cooperation, and economic and trade cooperation.
It has been successful in many areas, but the time has come to renew its purpose and for fresh engagement among our nations.
Much has changed over the past two decades for Caribbean nations as well as the EU.
While in 2000 there were only nine member states of the EU, there are now 28, which has radically changed the dynamic of the Union's influence in the world.
The global threats we share have also shifted.
Climate change, for example, which poses unmeasurable risk to the Caribbean, is a fight which is more urgent now than ever before.
Reasd Closer EU-Caribbean ties mean greater prosperity for all
1/20/19
European Union: Angela Merkel sees Germany and France as drivers of European unity
With Brexit looming on the horizon and populist parties calling for
further EU exits, European unity has been shaken. In a video message,
Merkel explained why she thinks a new friendship treaty with Paris will
help.
After centuries of war between the two countries, the friendship that now exists between Berlin and Paris was "anything but self-evident," she said.
Her remarks come just days before she and French President Emmanuel Macron are due to sign a new friendship treaty in the city of Aachen.
One of the main aspects that wasn't addressed in the old treaty was the role that Germany and France play in Europe.
"We work in Europe, we want to give momentum to European unity," Merkel said. "This dimension wasn't as planned out in the old treaty."
The German chancellor noted that the new Treaty of Aachen will largely entail more "cross-border cooperation" and more convergence between French and German policies in the economic sector and the labor market.
"We will supplement this contract with a list of projects that will be constantly updated to show how Germany and France continue to work together in Europe," she said.
Berlin and Paris are also close partners in foreign policy, she said, noting that France and Germany will head the United Nations Security Council for two consecutive months this spring.
Merkel and Macron will meet in Aachen to sign the treaty on January 22 — 56 years after the first friendship treaty was signed.
Read more: Angela Merkel sees Germany and France as drivers of European unity | News | DW | 19.01.2019
After centuries of war between the two countries, the friendship that now exists between Berlin and Paris was "anything but self-evident," she said.
Her remarks come just days before she and French President Emmanuel Macron are due to sign a new friendship treaty in the city of Aachen.
One of the main aspects that wasn't addressed in the old treaty was the role that Germany and France play in Europe.
"We work in Europe, we want to give momentum to European unity," Merkel said. "This dimension wasn't as planned out in the old treaty."
The German chancellor noted that the new Treaty of Aachen will largely entail more "cross-border cooperation" and more convergence between French and German policies in the economic sector and the labor market.
"We will supplement this contract with a list of projects that will be constantly updated to show how Germany and France continue to work together in Europe," she said.
Berlin and Paris are also close partners in foreign policy, she said, noting that France and Germany will head the United Nations Security Council for two consecutive months this spring.
Merkel and Macron will meet in Aachen to sign the treaty on January 22 — 56 years after the first friendship treaty was signed.
Read more: Angela Merkel sees Germany and France as drivers of European unity | News | DW | 19.01.2019
12/1/17
Germany Facing a Return to the Grand Coalition
On Thursday, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier received the
two party leaders for a long discussion, but even in the days leading up
to that meeting, it had become clear that the two were eagerly burying
the hatchet to lay the groundwork for a possible coalition. Schulz and
Merkel, together with Horst Seehofer, who leads the Bavarian
conservatives, now intend to explore the possibility of slapping
together another governing coalition - the same "grand coalition" that
voters so clearly rejected in the general election in late September.
As a group, Germans are thought to value political stability. But a repeat of the SPD-conservative coalition is the kind of stability that wouldn't be good for the country. The last four years have shown that a grand coalition is a static alliance, one that is good at spending money but not as adept at moving projects forward - aside from the project of right-wing populism, of course.
Deputy SPD head Olaf Scholz said recently that a rebirth of the grand coalition would "have negative consequences for our democracy." It would also mean that the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) would be the strongest party in opposition. That means it would always have the privilege in parliament of delivering the first rebuttal to Merkel's speeches.
Nevertheless, for the leaders of the parties involved, a grand
coalition isn't completely unattractive
\
For Merkel, it represents the best opportunity to secure her power, a motive that has long been important to her. And SPD head Martin Schulz already seems to be practicing the arguments he hopes to use at next week's party congress to convince unwilling delegates of the utility of another alliance with Merkel's conservatives.
Read more: Germany Facing a Return to the Grand Coalition - SPIEGEL ONLINE
As a group, Germans are thought to value political stability. But a repeat of the SPD-conservative coalition is the kind of stability that wouldn't be good for the country. The last four years have shown that a grand coalition is a static alliance, one that is good at spending money but not as adept at moving projects forward - aside from the project of right-wing populism, of course.
Deputy SPD head Olaf Scholz said recently that a rebirth of the grand coalition would "have negative consequences for our democracy." It would also mean that the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) would be the strongest party in opposition. That means it would always have the privilege in parliament of delivering the first rebuttal to Merkel's speeches.
\
For Merkel, it represents the best opportunity to secure her power, a motive that has long been important to her. And SPD head Martin Schulz already seems to be practicing the arguments he hopes to use at next week's party congress to convince unwilling delegates of the utility of another alliance with Merkel's conservatives.
Read more: Germany Facing a Return to the Grand Coalition - SPIEGEL ONLINE
5/23/17
EU: Handle the EU with more care and bring back solidarity in EU - by Annie Schreijer-Pierik
 |
| United we stand divided we fall |
This is not a very positive mid-term review of the EU-politics.
But let us realize that we are dealing with practical
problems of current cooperation. The EU in total has a wonderful track
record: More peace, security, freedom of expression and adequate work
and food.
These goals have been achieved during more than 60 years.
The problem is that too much people take these benefits for granted: as
if peace and prosperity naturally will also remain without the EU.
The reality is that we cannot and should not throw EU
cooperation overboard. Do not believe those political arsonists who set
the EU House on fire and then do not know how to control the fire or
rebuild the house.
It is clear: without the EU, we all lose a lot. Not only
does the EU facilitate trade on the continent, it is also a tremendous
cost saving that Brussels officials are doing the work for officials in
28 EU
countries. Only the EU has the power to stand up to mobile
operators and abolish its roaming charges;
Only the EU has the power to
stand up to foreign multinationals who try to avoid paying reasonable
taxes; Only the EU could agree with Turkey on managing the refugee
influx. And only the EU has the power to introduce a free InterRail card
for 18 year olds in so many countries.
The EU is a good thing. It needs to be handled with more
care. Most importantly, a feeling of solidarity should return among the
governments of the EU countries. Too often we see the attitude of “every
man for himself”. But this attitude does not bring anyone further in
the long term: like cyclists facing headwind, we know that it is better
to form a group instead of facing the wind alone.
So, the EU-agreements should be fairer for everyone.
Leaders should comply with the agreements, who says “yes” in Brussels
cannot say “no” back in the Member State. It is bad for EU-credibility
when leaders agree that diesel vehicles must emit less harmful
substances, but in the meantime do otherwise. Also, it does not look
good if Member States compete with each other on secretive national tax
deals with multinationals.
The founding fathers of the EU had a Christian vision of sharing,
trusting and reaching out to nations in need. I am reminded by this,
every time I see the EU-flag with its twelve stars.
Although Christianity might be in decline, and the EU may
face problems, I am of the opinion that solidarity should remain.
EU-countries must stand together, right now there is even an urgent
need.
Anyone can see that Russian devious power and influence is growing. The new American president Donald Trump seems not to bother about helping Europe or NATO.
So the EU itself must provide a solid defense, internet
safety and peace. That goes for the European continent, but also for
nearby Ukraine and the Middle East.
A bishop from Iraq, whom I invited to Brussels for a
conference on Christian persecution, told me he was impressed by the
terrorist attacks on the Brussels airport and subway. “Madam, we see
such attacks three times a day,” the Bishop told me.
I do not want Europe to become such a world. Amid the
worldwide problems, the bickering about the EU looks futile. let us
realise: EU countries are prosperous and peaceful because we removed
barriers for people and business.
Only through European cooperation, we maintain that peace, security, freedom of expression, enough work and food.
6/22/16
Opinion: Brexit poses challenge to peace in Europe
The German government - most of its members convinced, experienced Europeans - knows this, but can't say it out loud. A bitter foretaste of what's to come for the Germans and all the other Europeans is that an issue of existential importance for all is being voted on by no one but Britain: everyone else has no say in the matter.
Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is especially aware of the dilemma. It knows that at least in this question, it's backed by the majority of Germans. But no matter what German ministers or the chancellor herself have to say, it's almost certain to be used against them, and against the EU, in Germanophobe Britain.
The German finance minister - who is considered a hardliner, just ask the Greeks - summarized this dilemma in one sad sentence. Asked in London in March what Germany would do if Britain left the EU, Wolfgang Schäuble said: "We would cry."
Angela Merkel has taken a public vow of silence where the Brexit is concerned. Little more is said than the repeated affirmation that of course Berlin believes Britain should be in the EU - always accompanied by the assertion that it's up to the British people to decide. When there are no microphones nearby, the chancellor takes a more concrete stance, stating that a Brexit would be "terrible."
Tears and terror aside, the economic cost of a Brexit would be high for everyone, from London and Manchester to Paris, Berlin and Warsaw - but highest of all for Britain. Even Brexit supporters seem to suspect that leaving the EU would be economic idiocy.
So their arguments have come to target emotions instead, and the retreat to a nation of one's own - with its suggested greater self-determination and simplicity. And that's where they cross paths with their right-wing populist European brethren. Nationalists of all countries, unite - in order to separate.
But it is the political consequences of a Brexit that could truly be awful.
For all the historically illiterate talk of an EasyJet generation, the Europe that forged monetary union, and that was built upon the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Community always was, and is, a project of peace.
It was never ultimately about coal, but about cannons. This difficult trade-off is only possible if all of Europe's large states are engaged in the major everyday issues and the many small details.
Without London, the EU would find itself imbalanced. Berlin would be pushed into assuming a dominance it doesn't want and can't cope with. The German finance minister knows what that could mean - again, ask the Greeks: People no longer believe Germany is acting in Europe's interests
In the first half of the last century, European crises resulted in war; the second half - not least thanks to the treaties of Paris, Rome and Maastricht - brought peace to an extent that in this century, it seems a given.
But it isn't. Military solutions seem acceptable once more - just look to Europe's eastern fringes. Hostile warships might one day patrol the English Channel again, not in three or five years, but perhaps 30 years from now - just because back in 2016, quite needlessly, the wrong answers were given to the wrong questions.
Yet right now, no one in the German government can say that out loud.
Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is especially aware of the dilemma. It knows that at least in this question, it's backed by the majority of Germans. But no matter what German ministers or the chancellor herself have to say, it's almost certain to be used against them, and against the EU, in Germanophobe Britain.
The German finance minister - who is considered a hardliner, just ask the Greeks - summarized this dilemma in one sad sentence. Asked in London in March what Germany would do if Britain left the EU, Wolfgang Schäuble said: "We would cry."
Angela Merkel has taken a public vow of silence where the Brexit is concerned. Little more is said than the repeated affirmation that of course Berlin believes Britain should be in the EU - always accompanied by the assertion that it's up to the British people to decide. When there are no microphones nearby, the chancellor takes a more concrete stance, stating that a Brexit would be "terrible."
Tears and terror aside, the economic cost of a Brexit would be high for everyone, from London and Manchester to Paris, Berlin and Warsaw - but highest of all for Britain. Even Brexit supporters seem to suspect that leaving the EU would be economic idiocy.
So their arguments have come to target emotions instead, and the retreat to a nation of one's own - with its suggested greater self-determination and simplicity. And that's where they cross paths with their right-wing populist European brethren. Nationalists of all countries, unite - in order to separate.
But it is the political consequences of a Brexit that could truly be awful.
For all the historically illiterate talk of an EasyJet generation, the Europe that forged monetary union, and that was built upon the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Community always was, and is, a project of peace.
It was never ultimately about coal, but about cannons. This difficult trade-off is only possible if all of Europe's large states are engaged in the major everyday issues and the many small details.
Without London, the EU would find itself imbalanced. Berlin would be pushed into assuming a dominance it doesn't want and can't cope with. The German finance minister knows what that could mean - again, ask the Greeks: People no longer believe Germany is acting in Europe's interests
In the first half of the last century, European crises resulted in war; the second half - not least thanks to the treaties of Paris, Rome and Maastricht - brought peace to an extent that in this century, it seems a given.
But it isn't. Military solutions seem acceptable once more - just look to Europe's eastern fringes. Hostile warships might one day patrol the English Channel again, not in three or five years, but perhaps 30 years from now - just because back in 2016, quite needlessly, the wrong answers were given to the wrong questions.
Yet right now, no one in the German government can say that out loud.
9/29/15
European Economy: Future of SMEs: Europe’s economic powerhouses
Small and medium businesses (SMEs) are the heart of Europe’s economy
but some have not survived the financial crisis and many others have
had to innovate to have any kind of a future. Real Economy travelled to Italy
to meet some of those who have risen to that challenge, often tapping
into new sources of financing when lending from the banking sector was
drying up.
There are some 21 million SMEs in Europe, supplying about 85% of jobs. All that entrepreneurship allows Europe to control one fifth of world trade and that’s why it’s so important to understand these economic powerhouses and why they are so critical.
It works something like this: Jack has a micro-sized glass making company, which employs less than 10 people and makes around two million euros a year. Jack then supplies his glass to Greg’s small company which makes mosaics – Greg has earnings of less than 10 million and fewer than 50 employees. Greg then sells his mosaics to Linda who is a medium-sized mosaic and tile seller. She has 250 people or less on her payroll and her business makes 50 million euros.
However, if any of them are taken over, linked to or partnered with a large company, or are 50% owned by universities or local authorities they may no longer be considered SMEs. Jack, Greg, Linda and others like them create 2 out of every 3 jobs in Europe. Companies like theirs make up 9 out of 10 businesses in Europe, creating the value added that drives our growth.
Read more: Future of SMEs: Europe’s economic powerhouses | euronews, real economy
There are some 21 million SMEs in Europe, supplying about 85% of jobs. All that entrepreneurship allows Europe to control one fifth of world trade and that’s why it’s so important to understand these economic powerhouses and why they are so critical.
It works something like this: Jack has a micro-sized glass making company, which employs less than 10 people and makes around two million euros a year. Jack then supplies his glass to Greg’s small company which makes mosaics – Greg has earnings of less than 10 million and fewer than 50 employees. Greg then sells his mosaics to Linda who is a medium-sized mosaic and tile seller. She has 250 people or less on her payroll and her business makes 50 million euros.
However, if any of them are taken over, linked to or partnered with a large company, or are 50% owned by universities or local authorities they may no longer be considered SMEs. Jack, Greg, Linda and others like them create 2 out of every 3 jobs in Europe. Companies like theirs make up 9 out of 10 businesses in Europe, creating the value added that drives our growth.
Read more: Future of SMEs: Europe’s economic powerhouses | euronews, real economy
6/28/15
EU politicians should take their head out of the sand and start smelling the roses - by RM
 |
| It's decision time for the EU |
Turning the clock back to individual statehood status, with every nation its own borders and currency would mean instant suicide in today's world of Super Powers, including, China, the USA, and to a certain extend also Russia. These countries are all lying at the doorstep of EU's "weakling countries", ready to "gobble" them up.
If the EU falls apart, so would the present influence of each member state which they presently have under the powerful combined "nations umbrella" of the EU. Prosperity as EU citizen's now have enjoyed for many years would end not only abruptly, but also in a brutal fashion.
A solution, to solidify and further strengthen the European Union as a major world power, and to create even more economic prosperity for its citizens will require, not only for some of the member nation states politicians to abandon nationalistic pipe-dreams and look at the "big picture", but also to encourage them into making some dramatic changes to the structure of the EU. This would also include abolishing policies and treaties which have been unproductive, costly and caused more harm than good.
These changes could be achieved based on the following outline:
1) By referendum on a new EU constitution, which incorporates the following provisions:
a) establish the EU citizen as a full partner and decission-maker in all matters of government - by increasing the powers of the EU parliament, giving them the political authority to appoint the EU commission, based on the outcome of election results of the European parliamentary elections.
b) establishing a second chamber in the European parliament where all chairmen of local member state parliaments would be represented, having the power by majority vote to approve or oppose any resolution or proposal submitted by the EU Parliament or EU President.
c) the election of a EU President by universal vote, covering every member state of the European Union.
2) establishment of a permanent and strong European defense force
a) the defense force budget based on the proportional contribution in money and manpower (GDP and population) of all EU member states
b) review of all present military alliances by the EU (including those of individual member states) and establish a common EU defense force policy
3) establishing a common EU foreign policy based on:
a) the EU's economic and political interests and alliances with countries supporting EU's policies
b) the projection of a neutral position in relation to the geopolitical policies and interests of other nations
c) seeking economic alliances instead of military alliances
It is high time European politicians take their head out of the sand and start smelling the roses.
EU-Digest 12/31/14
Corporate Global Control: The Illusion Of Choice: These 10 Companies Are Responsible For Virtually Everything Around You
A chart via Reddit
shows how ten huge corporations control the production of almost
everything the average person buys, from food to clothes to hygienic
products.
$84 billion-company Proctor & Gamble is the largest advertiser in the U.S. and owns enough brands to serve 4.8 million people around the world, according to LinkedIn.
Nestle is famous for its chocolate, but the $200 billion-corporation is also the biggest food company in the world. It also owns L’Oreal, Gerber, Diesel and even pet food makers Purina and Friskies.
Serving two billion people around the world is renowned soap-maker Unilever, which can attribute the majority of its success to its ownership of Q-tips and Skippy peanut butter.
For the complete report click here: The Illusion Of Choice: These 10 Companies Are Responsible For Virtually Everything Around You
$84 billion-company Proctor & Gamble is the largest advertiser in the U.S. and owns enough brands to serve 4.8 million people around the world, according to LinkedIn.
Nestle is famous for its chocolate, but the $200 billion-corporation is also the biggest food company in the world. It also owns L’Oreal, Gerber, Diesel and even pet food makers Purina and Friskies.
Serving two billion people around the world is renowned soap-maker Unilever, which can attribute the majority of its success to its ownership of Q-tips and Skippy peanut butter.
For the complete report click here: The Illusion Of Choice: These 10 Companies Are Responsible For Virtually Everything Around You
8/9/14
Iceland - Peace: Can You Guess What Country Is Ranked the Most Peaceful in the World? | Alternet
“We are living in the most peaceful century in human history; however
the 2014 Global Peace Index shows that the last seven years has shown a
notable deterioration in levels of peace.”
So begins this year’s peace index, an annual report released by the nonprofit Institute for Economics and Peace. The study ranks 162 countries (covering 99.6% of the world’s population) according to a complex set of indicators that gauge the absence of violence and political instability.
These include a nation’s level of military expenditure, its relations with neighboring countries and the percentage of the population held in prisons.
According to this year’s report, we’re witnessing an escalation in global violence driven by the turmoil in Ukraine, civil war in South Sudan, the humanitarian crisis in Syria and a rise in terrorist activity in countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines and Libya. (The report was released before the Gaza nightmare unfolded.) The rise in violence is due to a rise in internal conflicts (i.e. the Syrian civil war) rather than armed altercations between nations (i.e. the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan). In 2013 alone, the cost of containing and dealing with the consequences of violence reached $9.8 trillion—11.3% of global GDP.
Yet while the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe remain plagued by bloodshed and chaos, there is happier news for those living in Western Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Across the board, the countries at the top of the index are relatively small, stable democracies like Iceland (#1) and Japan (#8). Check out this infographic to see which countries are the most and least peaceful, and access the IEP’s full report click here.
Read more: Can You Guess What Country Is Ranked the Most Peaceful in the World? | Alternet
So begins this year’s peace index, an annual report released by the nonprofit Institute for Economics and Peace. The study ranks 162 countries (covering 99.6% of the world’s population) according to a complex set of indicators that gauge the absence of violence and political instability.
These include a nation’s level of military expenditure, its relations with neighboring countries and the percentage of the population held in prisons.
According to this year’s report, we’re witnessing an escalation in global violence driven by the turmoil in Ukraine, civil war in South Sudan, the humanitarian crisis in Syria and a rise in terrorist activity in countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines and Libya. (The report was released before the Gaza nightmare unfolded.) The rise in violence is due to a rise in internal conflicts (i.e. the Syrian civil war) rather than armed altercations between nations (i.e. the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan). In 2013 alone, the cost of containing and dealing with the consequences of violence reached $9.8 trillion—11.3% of global GDP.
Yet while the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe remain plagued by bloodshed and chaos, there is happier news for those living in Western Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Across the board, the countries at the top of the index are relatively small, stable democracies like Iceland (#1) and Japan (#8). Check out this infographic to see which countries are the most and least peaceful, and access the IEP’s full report click here.
Read more: Can You Guess What Country Is Ranked the Most Peaceful in the World? | Alternet
5/26/14
Opinion: We must value the EU once again - by Christoph Hasselbach
No one can say it was inevitable, but it was expected. The next European
Parliament will be even more fragmented than the last. Representatives
from both far-left and far-right parties will be moving to Strasbourg in
greater numbers than before. As for turnout, the picture is mixed: in
some countries more people voted than before, but those votes often went
to Euro-skeptic parties.
All in all, the general public's interest in the EU is shockingly low - even though all the parties tried their best to motivate the electorate. For the first time, they chose leading candidates to tour the continent and debate each other. They tried hard to personalize and enliven the election, and make it more relevant. It did little good.
The only reassuring thing is that the parliament will remain functional, despite all the enemies in its own ranks. The representatives from UKIP, the Front National, the Danish People's Party will deliver angry speeches, but they won't really be able to block anything - because they differ from one another too much - they're too focused on their own nationalism.
By the same token, their rhetoric is always directed at their own voters in their respective home countries. They prefer to be the voice of the dissatisfied, rather than develop a major common project. This will cause the centrist, Europe-friendly parties to stick closer together. No, the Euro-skeptic extremists don't present a threat, at least not in the European Parliament.
The debt crisis of a few years ago showed how quickly an old order could be overthrown. The EU itself was peering into the abyss. That crisis has been overcome, more or less, but only thanks to common effort, mutual aid, and discipline. If each country had tried to find its way out of its crisis on its own, they would all have lost - even the stronger among them. Is that too long ago to still be a lesson?
How high the stakes are in Europe can also be seen from the Ukraine crisis: 25 years after the end of the Cold War, we're in danger of entering a new long-term European conflict. Astonishingly, the Ukraine crisis barely played a role in the election campaign, even though the EU is perhaps the best example of what balance and cooperation can achieve.
I met an African election observer at the last European election in 2009. When he saw the turnout figures - of 43 percent, the same as this time around - he shook his head and said, "In a lot of African states we'd be glad to have any free elections at all. And you Europeans throw away your rights!" It was a humbling meeting.
If we in the EU have no bigger problems than a few over-bureaucratic directives, then we really do have it good. Maybe we have it too good to appreciate the miracle of peace and common prosperity that we gained 70 years ago.
Read more: Opinion: We must value the EU once again | Europe | DW.DE | 26.05.2014
All in all, the general public's interest in the EU is shockingly low - even though all the parties tried their best to motivate the electorate. For the first time, they chose leading candidates to tour the continent and debate each other. They tried hard to personalize and enliven the election, and make it more relevant. It did little good.
The only reassuring thing is that the parliament will remain functional, despite all the enemies in its own ranks. The representatives from UKIP, the Front National, the Danish People's Party will deliver angry speeches, but they won't really be able to block anything - because they differ from one another too much - they're too focused on their own nationalism.
By the same token, their rhetoric is always directed at their own voters in their respective home countries. They prefer to be the voice of the dissatisfied, rather than develop a major common project. This will cause the centrist, Europe-friendly parties to stick closer together. No, the Euro-skeptic extremists don't present a threat, at least not in the European Parliament.
The debt crisis of a few years ago showed how quickly an old order could be overthrown. The EU itself was peering into the abyss. That crisis has been overcome, more or less, but only thanks to common effort, mutual aid, and discipline. If each country had tried to find its way out of its crisis on its own, they would all have lost - even the stronger among them. Is that too long ago to still be a lesson?
How high the stakes are in Europe can also be seen from the Ukraine crisis: 25 years after the end of the Cold War, we're in danger of entering a new long-term European conflict. Astonishingly, the Ukraine crisis barely played a role in the election campaign, even though the EU is perhaps the best example of what balance and cooperation can achieve.
I met an African election observer at the last European election in 2009. When he saw the turnout figures - of 43 percent, the same as this time around - he shook his head and said, "In a lot of African states we'd be glad to have any free elections at all. And you Europeans throw away your rights!" It was a humbling meeting.
If we in the EU have no bigger problems than a few over-bureaucratic directives, then we really do have it good. Maybe we have it too good to appreciate the miracle of peace and common prosperity that we gained 70 years ago.
Read more: Opinion: We must value the EU once again | Europe | DW.DE | 26.05.2014
4/6/14
European Council - Successful EU-Africa Summit
The 4th EU-Africa Summit, April 2 - 3, 2014 brought together more than 60 EU and African leaders,
and a total of 90 delegations, to discuss the future of EU-Africa
relations and reinforce links between the two continents. In the summit
declaration, leaders highlighted the close nature of EU-Africa relations
and the shared values of democracy, respect for human rights, the rule
of law and good governance as well as the right to development.
Leaders recognised the importance of peace and security as essential prerequisites for development and prosperity. In particular, they confirmed their commitment to enhancing political dialogue on international criminal justice and universal jurisdiction. Leaders also gave their support to the African aspiration and commitment to ensuring peace and stability in Africa and agreed to support African capabilities in this area through any available means, with a particular focus on capacity-building. Both continents agreed to strengthen common effort to fight international terrorism and to combat the spread.
Leaders pledged to pursue policies to create jobs and stimulate long-term growth on both continents. In particular the two continents agreed to cooperate more closely in the field of maritime policy. The EU also underlined its commitment to continuing to support African countries in the preparation of climate-resilient and low-emission development strategies. Leaders on both sides highlighted the importance of ensuring prudent and transparent management of respective natural resources, and responsible mineral sourcing.
The summit declaration also underlines the importance of encouraging greater investment and economic development within and between countries in both continents, alongside developing transport, access to drinking water and to sustainable and affordable energy. successful
Read more: European Council - EU-Africa summit 2014
Leaders recognised the importance of peace and security as essential prerequisites for development and prosperity. In particular, they confirmed their commitment to enhancing political dialogue on international criminal justice and universal jurisdiction. Leaders also gave their support to the African aspiration and commitment to ensuring peace and stability in Africa and agreed to support African capabilities in this area through any available means, with a particular focus on capacity-building. Both continents agreed to strengthen common effort to fight international terrorism and to combat the spread.
Leaders pledged to pursue policies to create jobs and stimulate long-term growth on both continents. In particular the two continents agreed to cooperate more closely in the field of maritime policy. The EU also underlined its commitment to continuing to support African countries in the preparation of climate-resilient and low-emission development strategies. Leaders on both sides highlighted the importance of ensuring prudent and transparent management of respective natural resources, and responsible mineral sourcing.
The summit declaration also underlines the importance of encouraging greater investment and economic development within and between countries in both continents, alongside developing transport, access to drinking water and to sustainable and affordable energy. successful
Read more: European Council - EU-Africa summit 2014
12/15/13
Economics: Thatcher and Reagan were wrong: Supply side economic does not work- it deepens the deficit and worsens inequality
 |
| Ronald Reagan |
More recent, interesting scholarly analysis by economist Emmanuel Saez et al, discussed here, shows that by over time and across advanced economies, lower marginal tax rates are associated with greater income inequality but not with faster growth. These researchers argue that “lower top tax rates induce top earners to bargain more aggressively for higher pay” and since they’re not adding more value—they’re just flexing their K-Street induced bargaining clout—it’s a zero sum proposition. Their gain is somebody else’s loss.
Supply-siders can’t understand why you’d need stimulus spending to offset a demand contraction because demand doesn’t contract in their model..Supply-siders believe growth and revenue are always a tax cut away—the theory is always structured around marginal rate cuts.
In order to evaluate whether supply-side policies really delivered on their promise, we looked at the economic performance of the three eras, all beginning at equivalent points in the business cycle. Since the 1993 tax increases were passed 10 quarters into an economic expansion, we compared performance for all three eras starting 10 quarters into their respective expansions, and then going forward five years from that point, or—in the case of the 2000s—until the expansion ended in December of 2007.
We compared performance during these equivalent years along seven key economic measures. Here are the facts.
The critical link in supply-side theory’s chain is business investment. Proponents argue that lower taxes on the rich will spur more investment, and since investment is a key ingredient to growth, that will boost the overall economy. But investment growth during both supply-side eras lagged far behind that of the 1990s when taxes were higher.
Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.
EU-Digest
8/14/13
The Netherlands-Almere: is the Netherlands still suffering from the "Dutch Self Confidence Disease"? by RM
Dutch disease can be described as the economic condition that arises
when a vast amount of wealth, resulting from external factors, flows
into a country. Usually these windfall revenues create high inflation
and sustain a currency priced beyond its competitive value. It drives
up production costs and leaves the output of the economy uncompetitive.
Capital invested in the economy becomes unproductive and the
productivity of labour declines.
In the 1960's, North Sea oil and gas was the easy and irresistible challenge for the Netherlands to quickly create great financial prosperity. But unfortunately without the steadying hand of government, using policy measures to maintain the competitive viability of the overall economy, the boon soon became a monumental bust.
Basically everyone in the Netherlands is somehow still living in this 60's fantasy-world and living beyond their means including to having a cocky attitude about it. .
The Netherland's experience demonstrates that the Dutch disease is a condition that has to be met with policies to maintain the competitiveness of the whole economy if you don't want the good fortune of a sudden increase in externally generated revenues to become a costly bubble to an economy. Today, we find municipal governments in the Netherlands not really seriously looking at what makes their city attractive to foreign investors in order to create new investments and jobs, but instead most seem to be haggling among themselves about political, internal and trivial administrative matters.
Instead organizations like the World Trade Center and the Chambers of Commerce and Tourist organizations should become an integral part of strategies which increase interest, investment and employment for the local community. Obviously it can not be a one man show, but must be a joint effort of people, organizations and corporations, which have a common and personal interest to increase the exposure of their city in order to create wealth.
It's a big world out there and you need to blow your own horn. Just putting out a brochure (often only in Dutch) does not get investors too excited.
No one will come to your area if you can't get out of your comfort-zone and start putting in some "sweat and tears" to make it happen .
Almere-Digest
In the 1960's, North Sea oil and gas was the easy and irresistible challenge for the Netherlands to quickly create great financial prosperity. But unfortunately without the steadying hand of government, using policy measures to maintain the competitive viability of the overall economy, the boon soon became a monumental bust.
Basically everyone in the Netherlands is somehow still living in this 60's fantasy-world and living beyond their means including to having a cocky attitude about it. .
The Netherland's experience demonstrates that the Dutch disease is a condition that has to be met with policies to maintain the competitiveness of the whole economy if you don't want the good fortune of a sudden increase in externally generated revenues to become a costly bubble to an economy. Today, we find municipal governments in the Netherlands not really seriously looking at what makes their city attractive to foreign investors in order to create new investments and jobs, but instead most seem to be haggling among themselves about political, internal and trivial administrative matters.
Instead organizations like the World Trade Center and the Chambers of Commerce and Tourist organizations should become an integral part of strategies which increase interest, investment and employment for the local community. Obviously it can not be a one man show, but must be a joint effort of people, organizations and corporations, which have a common and personal interest to increase the exposure of their city in order to create wealth.
It's a big world out there and you need to blow your own horn. Just putting out a brochure (often only in Dutch) does not get investors too excited.
No one will come to your area if you can't get out of your comfort-zone and start putting in some "sweat and tears" to make it happen .
Almere-Digest
11/1/12
What Does Sex Have to Do with World Peace? - by Soraya Chemaly
Last year, a quiet but powerful book, Sex and World Peace, was published by an interdisciplinary group of researchers and scholars. The authors, Valerie M. Hudson, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Mary Caprioli and Chad F. Emmett, set out to demonstrate and document the complex but evident relationship between how girls and women are treated and the security of the states in which they live.
The authors took the question, “How does a nation’s security affect the status of its women?” and asked instead, “Does the status of women affect a nation’s security?” The answer was a resounding, “Yes!” And their results and recommendations are startling in their power and clarity.
The book’s conclusions are compellingly derived from the authors’ construction and use of the WomanSTATS project and database, which contains more than 148,000 data points and includes more than 375 variables for 175 countries. It is the most comprehensive bank of data on the status of women in the world today, including information about everything from domestic violence, maternal mortality and rape to education and women’s political participation.
The very clear thesis of the book is that the very best indicator and predictor of a state’s peacefulness is not wealth, military expenditures, or religion; the best predictor is how well its girls and women are treated.
Read more: What Does Sex Have to Do with World Peace? : Ms. Magazine Blog
The authors took the question, “How does a nation’s security affect the status of its women?” and asked instead, “Does the status of women affect a nation’s security?” The answer was a resounding, “Yes!” And their results and recommendations are startling in their power and clarity.
The book’s conclusions are compellingly derived from the authors’ construction and use of the WomanSTATS project and database, which contains more than 148,000 data points and includes more than 375 variables for 175 countries. It is the most comprehensive bank of data on the status of women in the world today, including information about everything from domestic violence, maternal mortality and rape to education and women’s political participation.
The very clear thesis of the book is that the very best indicator and predictor of a state’s peacefulness is not wealth, military expenditures, or religion; the best predictor is how well its girls and women are treated.
Read more: What Does Sex Have to Do with World Peace? : Ms. Magazine Blog
3/19/07
European Story: Europe at 50 - Join The Debate - what story should Europe tell
For the full report on the "European Story" click on this link
Europe at 50 - Join The Debate - what story should Europe tell
Welcome. Join us in a debate about where Europe has come from and where it should be heading to. As the European Union approaches its ‘50th birthday’ — the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome — it seems to many of us that Europe has lost the plot. Europeans badly need a new story that we can tell in our different languages and idioms.
Timothy Garton Ash professor of European studies at Oxford University drafted a first proposal for a new way in which we could tell our story around six goals to which most Europeans aspire: Freedom, Peace, Law, Prosperity, Diversity and Solidarity.
You can read the English version in Prospect magazine by clicking on this link
Versions published in other European languages will be posted as soon as they appear.
This is only one writer’s first draft. The story is no good unless enough Europeans think it is pointing in the right direction. Please join in the debate. Feel free to use any European language you like. The discussion is completely free, but it will be followed by a group of our European students here at Oxford. We will remove anything that is downright obscene or constitutes incitement to hatred, and may tidy up the formatting, but otherwise we will leave posts exactly as they come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)