Filme porno

Categorii

Advertising

Cine va plati pentru un zid ridicol?

Stanford CDDRL

14 februarie 2017

·

7

min citit

de Alberto Diaz-Cayeros , CDDRL Programul saracie si guvernare; Director al Centrului pentru Studii Latino-Americane

Un zid de 21,6 miliarde este probabil cel mai risipitor proiect pe care administratia prezidentiala Trump incearca sa il urmeze in urmatorii ani. Pretul scurs implica un cost de constructie de 17,3 milioane pe mila sau putin mai putin de 10 mii de dolari pentru fiecare santier aflat pe calea sa. Este probabil ca proiectul sa se confrunte cu depasiri de costuri. Americanii, nu mexicanii, vor ajunge sa plateasca scump pentru acest proiect faraonic.

In termeni pur financiari, un astfel de proiect poate fi construit doar printr-un proiect de lege in Congres care aproba creditele necesare. Presedintele Trump nu poate crea aceste fonduri cu un ordin executiv. Americanii care platesc impozite federale – nu Donald Trump, care probabil nu a platit impozite federale pe venit de aproape doua decenii – ar plati pentru zidul infam. Dar cel mai important cost pentru americani din acest zid ridicol este ca va submina securitatea si parteneriatul cu Mexicul in lupta impotriva organizatiilor transnationale de trafic de droguri.

Fondurile pentru a plati un zid trebuie sa provina din fondul de venituri federale, iar costul lor de oportunitate se afla in proiecte care vor fi abandonate ca o utilizare alternativa a banilor contribuabililor.

Array

Notiunea ca o noua taxa poate fi inventata pentru a colecta venituri din surse „mexicane” este pur si simplu o minciuna. Consumatorii si producatorii sunt cei care impartasesc povara incidentei fiscale. O taxa creeaza o punte intre cerere si oferta, un pret mai ridicat reduce schimbul, guvernele extrag venituri si exista o pierdere de surplus pentru producator si consumator care se risipeste.

Daca ar fi perceput un tarif extraordinar, sa spunem pentru comertul cu sectorul auto legat de NAFTA, cu o cerere inelastica din partea companiilor americane, companiilor americane de automobile sau cumparatorilor de autoturisme ar ajunge sa plateasca cea mai mare parte a impozitului. Daca americanii s-au obisnuit sa manance avocado in timpul jocurilor de fotbal si cererea lor este inelastica, fanii vor plati o taxa compensatorie la frontiera pentru avocado. Daca se percepe o taxa pe remitentele mexicane prin intermediul Western Union, cu conditia unei elasticitati suficient de mari de substitutie, migrantii vor folosi alte mijloace pentru transferul de bani, inclusiv timp de difuzare a telefonului mobil sau numerar, astfel incat institutiile financiare americane si investitorii lor institutionali vor fi cei sa plateasca costul. Cu exceptia cazului in care SUA intentioneaza sa foloseasca diplomatia de canotaj pentru a forta Mexicul sa transfere bani direct catre Trezoreria SUA, americanii vor plati cea mai mare parte a zidului lui Trump.

Cine ar beneficia de acest proiect? Cinci mii de locuri de munca suplimentare in domeniul vamal si al protectiei frontierelor, care vor necesita, de asemenea, credite din Congres. Daca constructia de garduri anterioara este un ghid, companiile implicate nu vor fi mici contractori independenti, ci mari corporatii, companii cu proiecte de milioane de dolari.

Daca forta de munca in constructii devine mai mica, atat lucratorii documentati, cat si cei nedocumentati din sectorul constructiilor vor merge bine. Avand in vedere costurile de transport al materialelor la frontiera, companiile locale (in special multinationala mexicana Cemex) vor furniza ciment pentru betonul din structura. Prin urmare, beneficiarii unui zid vor fi in primul rand interese speciale, inclusiv multi muncitori si companii mexicane.

But the effect of the wall for Americans should be measured not regarding jobs or contracts, but security. Will an average American see any benefit from the expense of this money? Probably not. The strategic plan of the Customs and Border Protection agency is to base the deployment of resources on a risk-based strategy that relies on so-called “change detection” techniques, namely the use of technology, rather than physical barriers, to detect and respond to changing threats. These include mobile surveillance, video surveillance, night vision, thermal devices, ground sensors, and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) over-flights. Such technological capabilities, coupled with Mobile Response Teams (MRT), are the best way to respond to intelligence-driven targets, cross-border criminal activity, and any evolution in the threats to US national security. A wall can only deter entry of the relatively harmless migrants, most of them coming from Central America, including women and unaccompanied minors.

The truth is that if the Department of Homeland Security indeed complies with section 4(d) of Trump’s Executive Order in the coming 180 days, it will have to provide a comprehensive study of “a strategy to achieve complete operational control of the southern border.” In doing so, it will need to address the issue of whether a physical wall is the best way to meet this goal. Once President Trump learns that a physical barrier is not a good idea, he will either have to leave a poorly conceived campaign promise unfulfilled or pander to his supporters wasting millions. If his followers like such waste of money, we will have in the words of Peter Andreas “a politically successful failed policy.”

The worst consequences of the wall are, of course, not to the US, but for Mexico. The construction of the wall harms the good will that has characterized the binational relationship for so many years. To avoid being detected, hundreds of migrants will die from exposure as they shift their crossing routes to more dangerous areas in the desert. Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto will lose support to reach agreements with the US that may seem to give up sovereignty, even if they may be good deals for both countries. Any efforts to recoup costs through tariffs, compensatory duties or taxes on remittances will undermine trade and capital flows that fuel the engine of growth for both the US and Mexico. But a relatively unappreciated aspect of the wall is that the all these adverse consequences for Mexico will spill over to the United States, ultimately undermining the security of American citizens.

Arguably the most important reason why the wall is such a misguided policy by the Trump administration is the apparent contradiction of this project with the goals of the Executive Order issued on February 9, regarding transnational criminal organizations. That Executive Order has received little attention, probably because this is a matter where both left and right agree the US and its allies in the world are threatened by drug traffic and other criminal organizations — “bad hombres,” as President Trump would probably characterize them.

The methods drug traffic organizations use to conduct business threaten the security of drug users, illegal retailers, law enforcement officers and innocent bystanders. There is no question that they endanger American safety and wellbeing. But the greatest harm these organizations have done is not to the United States, but to Mexico, Colombia, Central America and the Caribbean. The violence in Mexico has been unleashed to a large extent due to efforts from Mexican governments to cooperate with the US in its hemispheric policy of the war on drugs.

The dilemma for the Trump administration is that the Executive Order from February 9 establishes the need to: “(d) enhance cooperation with foreign counterparts against transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including, where appropriate and permitted by law, through sharing of intelligence and law enforcement information and through increased security sector assistance to foreign partners by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security.” The single most relevant country in the world that has been a “foreign partner” of the US, “battling transnational criminal organizations” (this language comes from the Executive Order) has been… well, Mexico.

So the Trump administration cannot have it both ways. If they want cooperation from Mexico to fight the penetration of dangerous drug traffic criminal organizations into the US, they should give up on a foolish project that only plays a symbolic role among his most rancorous supporters. Mexico-United States border will be secure only if both countries work together.

There are many better ways to use 21.6 billion dollars to improve the bilateral relationship and the security of the United States with Mexico. For starters, the US could use some of that money to provide aid and press Mexico to improve its human rights record. The US could be helping Mexico to better train police officers and military personnel to uphold basic standards of conduct and become more efficient in fighting against organized crime. The US could press Mexico to uphold the cherished values of democratic accountability, the rule of law and transparency.

The US has an opportunity to start imagining a border for the 21st century, rather than looking back to the 19th when Mexico and the US were at war. A truly cybernetic wall, in which human and technological resources on both sides of the border are deployed and shared to prevent the flow of illegal merchandise in both directions: guns into Mexico and drugs into the US. Both countries could work together in the humane treatment of undocumented aliens as they attempt to cross the border and find joint solutions on how to handle this flow. And legal flows of economic activity, the exchange of culture, and the movement of capital and people could thrive, making both nations better and better off. Taxpayers, both in Mexico and the US, would probably be willing to pay for that.

Video Description:

Stanford CDDRL14 februarie 2017· 7 min cititde Alberto Diaz-Cayeros , CDDRL Programul saracie si guvernare; Director al Centrului pentru Studii Latino-AmericaneUn zid de 21,6 miliarde este probabil cel mai risipitor proiect pe care administratia prezidentiala Trump incearca sa il urmeze in urmatorii ani. Pretul scurs implica un cost de constructie de 17,3 milioane pe mila sau putin mai putin de 10 mii de dolari pentru fiecare santier aflat pe calea sa. Este probabil ca proiectul sa se confrunte cu depasiri de costuri. Americanii, nu mexicanii, vor ajunge sa plateasca scump pentru acest proiect faraonic.In termeni pur financiari, un astfel de proiect poate fi construit doar printr-un proiect de lege in Congres care aproba creditele necesare. Presedintele Trump nu poate crea aceste fonduri cu un ordin executiv. Americanii care platesc impozite federale - nu Donald Trump, care probabil nu a platit impozite federale pe venit de aproape doua decenii - ar plati pentru zidul infam. Dar cel mai important cost pentru americani din acest zid ridicol este ca va submina securitatea si parteneriatul cu Mexicul in lupta impotriva organizatiilor transnationale de trafic de droguri.Fondurile pentru a plati un zid trebuie sa provina din fondul de venituri federale, iar costul lor de oportunitate se afla in proiecte care vor fi abandonate ca o utilizare alternativa a banilor contribuabililor. Array Notiunea ca o noua taxa poate fi inventata pentru a colecta venituri din surse „mexicane” este pur si simplu o minciuna. Consumatorii si producatorii sunt cei care impartasesc povara incidentei fiscale. O taxa creeaza o punte intre cerere si oferta, un pret mai ridicat reduce schimbul, guvernele extrag venituri si exista o pierdere de surplus pentru producator si consumator care se risipeste.Daca ar fi perceput un tarif extraordinar, sa spunem pentru comertul cu sectorul auto legat de NAFTA, cu o cerere inelastica din partea companiilor americane, companiilor americane de automobile sau cumparatorilor de autoturisme ar ajunge sa plateasca cea mai mare parte a impozitului. Daca americanii s-au obisnuit sa manance avocado in timpul jocurilor de fotbal si cererea lor este inelastica, fanii vor plati o taxa compensatorie la frontiera pentru avocado. Daca se percepe o taxa pe remitentele mexicane prin intermediul Western Union, cu conditia unei elasticitati suficient de mari de substitutie, migrantii vor folosi alte mijloace pentru transferul de bani, inclusiv timp de difuzare a telefonului mobil sau numerar, astfel incat institutiile financiare americane si investitorii lor institutionali vor fi cei sa plateasca costul. Cu exceptia cazului in care SUA intentioneaza sa foloseasca diplomatia de canotaj pentru a forta Mexicul sa transfere bani direct catre Trezoreria SUA, americanii vor plati cea mai mare parte a zidului lui Trump.Cine ar beneficia de acest proiect? Cinci mii de locuri de munca suplimentare in domeniul vamal si al protectiei frontierelor, care vor necesita, de asemenea, credite din Congres. Daca constructia de garduri anterioara este un ghid, companiile implicate nu vor fi mici contractori independenti, ci mari corporatii, companii cu proiecte de milioane de dolari. porno couple naspoline.org actrice porno blonde balticfoods.cyberangles.org porno francais mere et fils gamesshop24.eroticgreetingcards.com little porno dallashomeandgardenshow.com film porno français streaming www.benacerraf.com porno gaule www.theoaksgroup.com perfectgirl porno ferreavalves.com le porno minidepositosdeleste.com porno sénégalais inteen.org film porno complet gratuit iaff-fc.org movie porno ace.funvezun.ru porno minecraft reedorgan.com porno torrent mhinc.biz video porno gay mature www.preschoolteacher.com alexandra daddario porno www.alientiger.com porno hard francais mouasher.net porno anal francais examenenglish.com badoo porno blogladder.com woodman porno tiendaelcolombiano.com film erotique porno bakda.com Daca forta de munca in constructii devine mai mica, atat lucratorii documentati, cat si cei nedocumentati din sectorul constructiilor vor merge bine. Avand in vedere costurile de transport al materialelor la frontiera, companiile locale (in special multinationala mexicana Cemex) vor furniza ciment pentru betonul din structura. Prin urmare, beneficiarii unui zid vor fi in primul rand interese speciale, inclusiv multi muncitori si companii mexicane.But the effect of the wall for Americans should be measured not regarding jobs or contracts, but security. Will an average American see any benefit from the expense of this money? Probably not. The strategic plan of the Customs and Border Protection agency is to base the deployment of resources on a risk-based strategy that relies on so-called “change detection” techniques, namely the use of technology, rather than physical barriers, to detect and respond to changing threats. These include mobile surveillance, video surveillance, night vision, thermal devices, ground sensors, and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) over-flights. Such technological capabilities, coupled with Mobile Response Teams (MRT), are the best way to respond to intelligence-driven targets, cross-border criminal activity, and any evolution in the threats to US national security. A wall can only deter entry of the relatively harmless migrants, most of them coming from Central America, including women and unaccompanied minors.The truth is that if the Department of Homeland Security indeed complies with section 4(d) of Trump’s Executive Order in the coming 180 days, it will have to provide a comprehensive study of “a strategy to achieve complete operational control of the southern border.” In doing so, it will need to address the issue of whether a physical wall is the best way to meet this goal. Once President Trump learns that a physical barrier is not a good idea, he will either have to leave a poorly conceived campaign promise unfulfilled or pander to his supporters wasting millions. If his followers like such waste of money, we will have in the words of Peter Andreas “a politically successful failed policy.”The worst consequences of the wall are, of course, not to the US, but for Mexico. The construction of the wall harms the good will that has characterized the binational relationship for so many years. To avoid being detected, hundreds of migrants will die from exposure as they shift their crossing routes to more dangerous areas in the desert. Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto will lose support to reach agreements with the US that may seem to give up sovereignty, even if they may be good deals for both countries. Any efforts to recoup costs through tariffs, compensatory duties or taxes on remittances will undermine trade and capital flows that fuel the engine of growth for both the US and Mexico. But a relatively unappreciated aspect of the wall is that the all these adverse consequences for Mexico will spill over to the United States, ultimately undermining the security of American citizens.Arguably the most important reason why the wall is such a misguided policy by the Trump administration is the apparent contradiction of this project with the goals of the Executive Order issued on February 9, regarding transnational criminal organizations. That Executive Order has received little attention, probably because this is a matter where both left and right agree the US and its allies in the world are threatened by drug traffic and other criminal organizations — “bad hombres,” as President Trump would probably characterize them.The methods drug traffic organizations use to conduct business threaten the security of drug users, illegal retailers, law enforcement officers and innocent bystanders. There is no question that they endanger American safety and wellbeing. But the greatest harm these organizations have done is not to the United States, but to Mexico, Colombia, Central America and the Caribbean. The violence in Mexico has been unleashed to a large extent due to efforts from Mexican governments to cooperate with the US in its hemispheric policy of the war on drugs.The dilemma for the Trump administration is that the Executive Order from February 9 establishes the need to: “(d) enhance cooperation with foreign counterparts against transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including, where appropriate and permitted by law, through sharing of intelligence and law enforcement information and through increased security sector assistance to foreign partners by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security.” The single most relevant country in the world that has been a “foreign partner” of the US, “battling transnational criminal organizations” (this language comes from the Executive Order) has been… well, Mexico.So the Trump administration cannot have it both ways. If they want cooperation from Mexico to fight the penetration of dangerous drug traffic criminal organizations into the US, they should give up on a foolish project that only plays a symbolic role among his most rancorous supporters. Mexico-United States border will be secure only if both countries work together.There are many better ways to use 21.6 billion dollars to improve the bilateral relationship and the security of the United States with Mexico. For starters, the US could use some of that money to provide aid and press Mexico to improve its human rights record. The US could be helping Mexico to better train police officers and military personnel to uphold basic standards of conduct and become more efficient in fighting against organized crime. The US could press Mexico to uphold the cherished values of democratic accountability, the rule of law and transparency.The US has an opportunity to start imagining a border for the 21st century, rather than looking back to the 19th when Mexico and the US were at war. A truly cybernetic wall, in which human and technological resources on both sides of the border are deployed and shared to prevent the flow of illegal merchandise in both directions: guns into Mexico and drugs into the US. Both countries could work together in the humane treatment of undocumented aliens as they attempt to cross the border and find joint solutions on how to handle this flow. And legal flows of economic activity, the exchange of culture, and the movement of capital and people could thrive, making both nations better and better off. Taxpayers, both in Mexico and the US, would probably be willing to pay for that.

Categorie:
Taguri:
Data adaugarii: