Do Crips And Surenos Have The Same Sign

Obama's Wars: Bob Woodward's new book essential

Bob Woodward from The Washington Post was already well-known for having made public the Watergate scandal with Carl Bernstein in 1972. He then published many books on US politics that have all become unavoidable for everyone studying the United States. With Obama’s wars , Woodward wrote an essential text about the decision-making process on foreign policy . This publication is a major event in America’s political season, just some weeks before the mid-term elections, and has already become a Classic in American political literature.

Obama’s wars deals with the American strategy towards Iraq and especially Afghanistan. How was this shaped? How were made the decisions? Who really decides? How can we explain what’s happening on the Afghan ground with what happened in the Oval Office? More broadly, what’s happening at the highest level of US politics? Woodward’s book gives passionate, informative, and disrupting answers.

The book is disrupting, because it first describes an Obama administration undermined by internal divisions. There is, according to Bob Woodward, an increasing conflict between short-term political interests and long-term military strategies that shapes the decision-making process in the Obama administration . We meet a lot of characters in this book; each of them has his own opinion about the war. Vice-President Biden, for instance, underlines the fact that “progress in Afghanistan depends on reducing corruption”; he considers the Afghan President, Hamid Karzaï, as unreliable since he learned by the CIA that he is manic depressive. He especially supports a less important military presence in the country and even a rollback, while General McChrystal, then General Petraeus, claim for a bigger military commitment. At the contrary, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, chief of the American diplomacy, endorses the military’s position.
When Vice-President Joe Biden insulted the special US representative in Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, as a “fuckhead”; when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton uses the expression “your decisions” instead of “our decisions” while she’s talking to the President; when Barack Obama spends many days hearing at each contradictory point of view, there is no need of others words to understand how bad the atmosphere is in Obama’s administration.

Especially, Woodward describes a hesitating President, under several and contradictory influences, sometimes unable to settle the conflicts. Barack Obama seems to be “ fixated on an exit strategy ”. The book underlines his uncertainty several times.

Thus, the weight of internal politics appears as the main factor in this decision-making process . Obama refused a long-term commitment in Afghanistan because he thought he had the confidence of Democrats and voters for only two years. It explains his refusal of a “ Nation-building strategy ” ("Nation-building" meaning the whole reconstruction of Afghanistan: the economy, the political institutions, the civil society, a running private sector), that would have cost 1 000 billion dollars. That is why he sent only 30 000 new soldiers in Afghanistan while the Pentagon claimed for 40 000. According to him, the war in Afghanistan must be as short as possible, just in order to keep the support of the Democratic Party. Broadly, Woodward’s book describes Obama as focused on short-term goals linked with internal politics while the situation on the ground requires a long-term strategy . It draws a gap ever larger between the President and military officials .

By depicting the atmosphere in Obama’s administration, the President’s difficulty to settle, and especially the growing gap between the “Commander in Chief” and the military, Obama’s wars by Bob Woodward explains All Of The hesitations, all of The Turnaround Strategy in the U.S. That Have Been blatant Since 2009. More broadly, it explains us the complexity of the decision-making process in US Foreign policy.

Remington Vs Tikka 2010 Reviews

Preview ... Focus on

Rectangular Beveled Mirror Tiles

Is there still a "special relationship" between Britain and the United States? American concerns

From a geopolitical point of view, it is generally the foreign policy of Great Britain as aligned with the interests and policy options the United States. In fact, the United States and England have developed since the twentieth century, a specific relationship, not only based on mutual interests or a "realpolitik", but also on shared beliefs, common values. The joint commitment of American and British power in the international arena was checked several times, including quite recently with the alliance between President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. But now, more and more conservative U.S. analysts are concerned about the deterioration of this "special relationship .

is less a convergence of interests that a genuine Anglo-American political theory that is causing the extremely close alliance between the U.S. and Great Britain. The longevity of this relationship so exclusive is based on the idea that in history, only the English and American revolutions had enabled the effective transition to democracy and political freedom, on the contrary example of the French Revolution and Chinese revolution, which had only perpetuate or revive dictatorships. In the field of political thought, Americans and British were developing theories of constitutional law that seemed well ahead of the institutional practices of their contemporaries. Thus was born the idea that the two English-speaking peoples, constituting a "Anglo-Saxon" had a specific responsibility: to promote an international order based companies, on liberalism, free trade, rule of law and democracy.
The course of the Second World War was provided to support the vision of the special relationship the United States and Great Britain being the last Western countries to resist the Nazi wave in 1940-1942. The war against Hitler marked an important step in building a close alliance between the two powers past custodians of democratic ideology and human rights.

Such a view naturally implies almost military cooperation, based on the almost unconditional support for Britain to U.S. military policies. That is why the British played a significant role in the establishment of NATO. In military contributions, financial and political Organization, Great Britain was the major player behind the U.S., like them members of the Security Council of the United Nations. The scientific and technical exchanges, particularly in the nuclear sphere, allowed the U.S. to lift Great Britain to the status of nuclear power in the post-war period. Nuclear weapons were designed, developed and controlled jointly in the framework of treaties such as the Atomic Energy Defense Agreement of 1958, a document which highlights the unprecedented level of integration in the nuclear field between two sovereign states. In the field of intelligence, the Anglo-American cooperation was also widely developed thanks to the Cold War, playing a unique complementarity between MI6 and the CIA, the two intelligence agencies more developed, the most effective - and The most controversial - Powers West.

Was well built with European public opinion the image of Britain as a "geopolitical American enclave," a European power inevitably oriented America and not to the mainland, intrinsically Atlanticist. This description is not far from reality, but reality is more complex.

The agreement on the major differences was not evacuated, and the story of " special relationship" has been characterized tension, whether in 1956 when the Americans are frontally opposed to the British during the Suez crisis, or even during the '80s, when the honeymoon between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher with the Falklands War that the U.S. administration does not digested. Differences that do not question the logic whose longevity still seemed indisputable in the early 2000s.
But what worries some American analysts, these are some basic trends, developments inevitable. If it is largely "Atlanticist", near the United States in its political and economic culture, Great Britain did has been no less sensitive to the dynamics of European integration, so much so that it is increasingly torn between two centers of attraction.

UK crossed a milestone with its accession to the European Economic Community in 1973, a decision that marked the end of the Anglo-Saxon exclusivity on international free trade. In other words, the logic of integration is no longer exclusively Atlanticist, but continental. Since the British were all European and all institutional advancements, but in an ambivalent position which has reflected many times on the European budget issues, and the refusal to enter the eurozone.
The Bush-Blair period between 2001 and 2007 was emblematic of the ambivalent position between European integration and geopolitical alignment options on the U.S. administration. The joint commitment in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, a bilateral initiative that circumventing international law and the UN, but also from Tony Blair, the choice to stand out from the French, Germans and Russians, showed although the British political class still looking to America.
But many U.S. analysts, generally related to the Republican Party or supporters of the neoconservative think tanks of the Bush years, expressed concern about the reaction of British public opinion to Blair's experience in foreign policy. The sinking of the coalition in Iraq has greatly tarnished the image and balance of the decade, Tony Blair, however, begun under the endorsements aspects of modernity in 1997. His ouster of the head of the Labour Party and its exit from 10 Downing Street in 2007 is largely related to the disastrous Iraq adventure, his electoral base does not forgiving him his "servility" to George W. Bush. The failure Iraq would, according to these academics, undermined the very idea of close military cooperation between the two powers.

They believe that the successor to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, sought to rectify the situation from 2007 to 2009, pushing away his country's cooperation with the European Union, stressing his concern for multilateralism, appointing ministers like Douglas Alexander and Mark Malloch Brown, known for their dislike of U.S. unilateralism, or by placing David Miliband Minister of Foreign Affairs, which refuted the very term "special relationship" between Britain and the United States.

Academics American conservatives also worry about the rise of liberal Democrats, very Europhile, during the 2010 elections. With more than 23% of the vote, the centrist party could form a coalition government with the conservative leader David Cameron and Nick Clegg became Deputy Prime Minister. The positioning of the Euro-skeptic David Cameron does more reassuring because nothing dramatic happened since coming to 10 Downing Street in May.

Scorpio Males Interest

The selective action puzzle

The selective intervention is a theoretical debate and cost-effective response to the problem: "Is that a vertical integration a firm is always a solution as good or greater than a vertical disintegration of a firm? . This debate, still current, is built around two propositions: that of Williamson and that of Grossman and Hart. The concept was proposed by Williamson and aims to compare a large firm and what it might be and whether it was divided into smaller entities for each activity.

In this first part we discuss Williamson's suggestions. The non-intuitive idea of the work, since cons-factual, is to suggest that a firm would have for example interest entities to be managed separately from the already vertically integrated. The distinction with the approach of Williamson and that of Grossman and Hart based on principal-agent relationship. The principal offers a contract incentive. In view of Williamson, only the acts after the establishment of the contract (the contract is put in place only for the agent). In the Grossman and Hart, the principal is also involved in the contract terms. The choice of the theoretical structure implies different consequences and recommendations.

As Jacques CREMER in his working paper "Solving the Puzzle Selective Intervention" (TSE, March 2010), no company can be completely integrated vertically as each productive activity requires both upstream and downstream production of other goods or services, often complementary to each other . In sum, a firm tends to a perfect integration but can not get it completely. Also, no firm can be fully integrated, there will always be an input purchased from another contractor. Therefore, the question is to what degree a firm's interest to integrate.

Issue fundamental debate is that it calls into question the obvious too soon established. For example, what model you seem the most efficient between these two proposals: *

- a firm produces oil in a desert, it uses a pipeline to transfer its production to a central refinery. Each activity is being managed by a separate entity.

- A firm produces oil at sea, she uses a boat to transport production to a point in refining. Each activity is being managed by a separate entity.

The second proposal seems the least expensive Because including the establishment of complete contract is possible. In practice, the firm may subcontract the transfer of production to any company that specializes in shipping. However the pipeline involves a long-term contract and especially the use of a specific asset for each entity. Regardless, the third entity (pipeline) required for the transfer of production involves incomplete contracts. In this case integration is a far superior solution to the model with three separate entities.

Williamson shows that integration decreases the incentive. The three owners of the three separate entities that feel more responsible managers of a firm already integrated. However, as the model oil-refinery-transport shows, integration remains the most cost effective solution if the asset is specific to each activity. Regardless, the assets will be more specific, more integration will be a superior solution to a separate organization. On the other hand always in a vertical pattern, the upstream entity of a second entity has a greater ability to control. Considering the firm as the upstream entity, it a alors tout intérêt à s’intégrer.

L’enjeu de l’intervention sélective est aussi à mettre en parallèle avec le problème du hold up. Les deux concepts limitent la frontière de la firme. La distinction entre ces deux notions repose sur les engagements des managers. Dans une entité séparée d’une autre, les managers restent exposés au jugement du marché, en particulier sur le respect des objectifs initialement fixés. Si ces engagements ne sont pas vérifiés, il existe un risque de hold-up (processus où une firme intègre progressivement un sous-traitant à son propre schéma organisationnel) donc un risque que the subcontractor is vertically integrated with the client firm. Property rights are important variables in deciding what is integration. For these reasons, selective intervention is considered expensive. The firm must measure the opportunity cost of decreasing the incentive mechanism of the contract owner-manager. Costs that are considered by Williamson as illusory as it becomes impossible to maintain incentives at a constant level.

Williamson's contribution is to show the benefits of integration and offer contracts established on the principle that entities are not integrated to preserve maximum incentives.

However, this proposal has generated considerable criticism.

First, there is no evidence that the optimal contract after integration is a simple variation of the optimal contract without integration. It's a good idea but not proven. The second recommendation (organizing the firm as if it was separate entities) Williamson's life is not as relevant as the first (the integration is always preferable).

Masten (1999) stresses the need for an effective guarantee to encourage managerial divisions to innovate, make very profitable investments and reduce costs, or to remain efficient. Such an initiative would go beyond the theories of Williamson resigned under any circumstances contemplated the possibility of a centralized organization that retains all its power incentive. Selective intervention can not be verified.

One way to disprove and prove the falsity of Williamson on the still more profitable vertical integration is to show that is possible to earn an income at least as high with an organization separate entity. This requires that the contract applies mechanisms such as incentives for the agent to the principal. This is where Grossman and Hart in 1986.

Grossman and Hart believe that incentive mechanisms can be introduced by means of property rights. That the allocation of those rights that determine the power of incentive contract. Game theory analyzes the implementation of the contract that must be seen as a game and not organized as a simple desire to control the behavior agent. To simplify the model by Grossman and Hart (1986) is with 2 officers and 1 active. Hart and Morre (1990) have proposed an extension of the paper with more agents and more active.

In traditional theories, adverse selection was very static. The principal offers a contract to the agent who accepts or not to honor it. This contract is necessarily incomplete (since not all information can be written) so the agent operates within a predetermined by the principal. In the work of Grossman and Hart, it is simply a framework of action for both agents so that property rights facilitate the implementation of incentives. In addition, after signing the contract remains the principal as involved as the agent.

Riordan (1990) criticizes this view by showing that Grossman and Hart define vertical integration through the control of the asset when it is the ability to control the production system which defines vertical integration for Riordan .

For example, if the contract implies that the downstream firm can use capital and labor power of the upstream firm then there is no integration vertical sense of Grossman and Hart, while Riordan sees integration as such because the two firms start simultaneously in agreement on the internal management of the productive process.

But if the contract requires that the upstream firm leases an asset to the firm specific downstream while Grossman and Hart considers vertical integration where Riordan would say the opposite in view of non-participation of the downstream firm internal control of the upstream firm.

Bibliography:

Williamson, Oliver E. 1985, "The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets and Vertical Contracting "

Klein, Benjamin, Robert C.Crawford and Armen A.Alchian 1978: " Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive COntracting Process. " The journal of Law and Economics

Crémer, Jacques, 1995 " Arm's Lenght Relatioships " Quaterly Journal of Economics"

Crémer, Jacques, 2010, " Solving the "Selective Intervention " Puzzle", TSE Working Paper

Nicolai J.Foss, Peter G. Klein, Richard N.Langlois, Lasse B.Lien : http://organizationsandmarkets.com

Grossman, Sandford H. and Oliver D.Hart. 1986 " The costs and benefits of ownership: a theory of vertical and lateral integration. " Journal of Political Economy 94

Comments For A Wedding Card

Hillary Clinton At The Council on Foreign Relations: redefining America's leadership for the 21st century?

During a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on September 8th, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech in which she reasserted some classic topics about the American commitment in the world, claiming for a “ lasting American leadership for the decades to come ”.

“ America can, must, and will lead in this new century ” she said in the most explicit way, emphasizing a renewed American interventionism in international relations. With such a speech, Clinton aimed at reasserting first the ability of her country, even in a period of economic turmoil, to take initiatives on a global scale. Then, Hillary Clinton emphasized what she called “ a new American moment ”: according to her, the American global leadership is more essential than ever in today’s world. In other words, it is time for the United States to seize the opportunity given by the current needs of a deeper American commitment: the world would be counting on the United States, as showed after the floods in Pakistan or currently during the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authority.

Has Hillary Clinton become neoconservative on foreign policy issues? Not really. She remains far from George W. Bush’s views and practices between 2000 and 2008, by refusing unilateralism. In other words, Hillary Clinton has redefined the American leadership as the American ability to mobilize partners and allies with shared diplomatic initiatives ; thus “ American leadership ” in Clinton’s mouth doesn’t mean the right to go alone and dismiss the international law, but means that the US would work more closely with the United Nations and International Institutions. She also said “ we must often lead in new ways ”, referring to the expression of “ smart power ”, instead of “ hard or soft power ” she used and made famous for two years.
Instead of Neoconservatives, Clinton’s speech clearly reminds her predecessor Madeleine Albright’s views during Bill Clinton’s second term as President, when she was talking about the United States as the “ indispensable nation ”. According to Stewart M. Patrick , Senior Fellow in the CFR, Hillary Clinton has “ offered her own vision of US global leadership, adapted to an era of more constrained US power ”, a vision fully different from the Neoconservative one, founded on “ unchallenged US primacy and freedom of action ”.

However, the difference is blatant between this speech and the one she gave last year in the same think tank . In 2009, the Secretary of State insisted on multilateralism, partnerships. These topics are always part of the speech, but they have been moved to the background, leaving the place on the foreground for a single American leadership.
That is why, according to the analyst from the CFR, Clinton appeared so enthusiastic on NATO, describing “ the most successful alliance in the world ”, and eluding the obviously different views between America and many European countries on the Organization. That is why she avoided the tricky issue between the United States and its fellow partners: the enlargement of the United Nations Security Council . It is not certain that the America Clinton depicts would be ready to support Brazil, India, or other emerging power as permanent members in the Security Council.

The so-called “renewed American leadership” Hillary Clinton described appears more reluctant than ever to integrate new powers in international institutions. Especially, Clinton’s speech seems to dismiss any large reform of global governance . Is this model really adapted to the 21st century?

According to the columnists from the New York Times, this speech was meant to address voters for the next mid-term elections in November which will probably turn at the advantage of the Republican Party. Indeed, the Obama administration is currently looking for the diplomatic success it needs . When you look at Obama’s foreign policy priorities such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and the Middle East, the assessment may be harsh. Tehran has also nuclear ambitions for building a regional leadership clearly threatening Israel’s security. Despite the announcements, the American military will remain involved for a large part in Iraq. North Korea poisoned the US-China relationship this summer. Afghanistan remains “ the Graveyard of the empires ”. And everyone can notice the lack of progress on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In these conditions, Obama is more and more compared to Jimmy Carter and his several failures on foreign policy issues - so the Obama administration had to send a strong message to the American People on this topic. Not sure The Dear allies and partners of the U.S. would appreciate it.

Pullout Ironing Board

The U.S. economy and its uncertainties

Many economists have been questioning for several months on the cyclicality of the U.S. economy. If the recovery seemed sustainable, many fear a return to recession. This uncertainty is particularly important as it signifies the European economies and their institutions and all international markets. If the U.S. economy is doing badly, then global markets will be destabilized. But what are these uncertainties?

Much of the problem is quite simple to grasp. Overall demand is very low, the effective supply can not increase (output gap) and economic growth remains too low. Meanwhile over fiscal policies seem necessary. Yet without the benefit of taxpayers, high public spending is difficult to justify when an application for bond markets and bond yields very low. The problem is that a spiral can be installed by the variable rate of unemployment higher and higher. Between economic growth, unemployment and public spending, the analysis can quickly become complex. Now all the current debate on the economy American relies on these three pillars.

A GLOBAL DEMAND LOW

One solution to this problem is to decide on a debate that is supposed to structural unemployment. Bradford DeLong spoke about it and quickly showed the falsity of the debate. Structural unemployment is a shift in labor demand across sectors leading to a cost adjustment for employees (new powers to obtain the flexibility of labor supply) as measured by higher unemployment rates. For example, a decline in demand for real estate would imply a lower demand new construction. On the other hand, the decline in real estate could be accompanied by an increase in demand for goods or services. There would be a structural change in labor supply where the bricklayers required should obtain new skills for example produce certain goods or services requested by households. This is a situation of structural unemployment. Today, however, to simplify, not a change in the demand for goods or services that we see but an overall decline in demand that affects too many important areas.

savings rates as favorable and unfavorable

Therefore, and if one accepts the idea that the U.S. aggregate demand is too low, one may wonder about its causes. Martin Feldstein examines the net saving rate of households. This ratio is generally very low in the United States of about 2% since the 90s. The tendency to slightly spared was notably driven by strong valuation of securities held by individuals and access to easy credit. These two factors encouraging Americans to save less and thus consume more. Mid-2010, the U.S. savings rate was estimated at 6.3%, well above to 2% above normal and close to the level of year 80 (9%).

This increase is rather mechanical. The high unemployment encourages individuals to save in anticipation of partial unemployment. We can cite for example the case of Modigliani's life cycle where the agent adjusts its consumption and savings so that their standard of living is maintained over several years. On the other hand the difficulties of the real estate sector made it difficult to obtain new credits. Added to this is the insolvency of the third owners of Americans with home loans following the severe decline in their assets (assets estate).

RISK OF DEPENDENCE

WITH EXTERNAL ECONOMIES THAT INCREASE

From a microeconomic point of view these behaviors create a decline in household demand. According to a macroeconomic perspective the problem is twofold. The decline in aggregate demand does not finance new investments, therefore limiting the restructuring of the economy. To remedy this decline in aggregate demand, public expenditure requires an increase in the budget including a greater tax burden on households and scope. In itself, the mechanism could balanced by a tax system that would compensate for individual behavior.

Gold is measured by the involvement of the U.S. economy vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The U.S. household savings (which fell from 10 000 billion since 2007) is insufficient to finance government spending. The use of foreign capital will quickly become a necessity. However, any dependency on the outside involves greater risk and especially autonomy of the weaker U.S. economy.

POLICY economically risky

AND DEVELOPER UNCERTAINTIES CURRENT

Barack Obama once advocated a growth based on exports. As proposed by Daniel Gros, the analogy with Germany of the 90s is not so bad. In this case, the first European economic power has developed an export strategy that has paid dividends since 2000. The problem is that unlike Germany, the United States can not derive any benefit from new opportunities. Southern Europe had resulted in support of the single currency, develop new markets including real estate in Germany. Opportunities that have strongly contributed to the development of exports. The United States will not have such opportunities and will suffer even more than the dollar to the yuan is linked with the country, China is experiencing strong economic growth. In addition to these adverse conditions the vision long term approach that requires the export strategy of the United States: the transition is usually long and requires ten years.

TO AVOID A NEW CRISIS

In this context, how to support domestic demand by limiting the length with the outer while controlling public spending is a real headache. The United States will cope, especially if no solution is found then a second recession is inevitable. These uncertainties in financial markets. Importantly, these uncertainties can lead to self behavior directors - something very desirable for our economies, including European ones where everything remains to be done.

Creative Webcam Livedriverwindows 7

uncertain first steps of European diplomacy

calls a "single European voice" in international negotiations are old, but the concrete developments of the idea are very recent. Summer 2010 saw the creation of effective service to the European External Action Service (EAS) headed by the unexpected British Ashton. The function of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs is to represent the EU internationally. The challenge was whether she will represent in lieu of or in addition to Member States. The answer is very clearly the second option - which is very informative on the diplomatic strategy of the EU, but also that of countries like France.

Objectives EEAS are twofold: " strengthen the voice of the EU worldwide " and " improve its impact on the ground . The first 6 months of exercise Ashton have not been conclusive so far. Inaudible on the crisis in Gaza, invisible to Haiti, although the EU will achieve concrete results in humanitarian terms (school construction, reconstruction assistance, relief), the initiative was clearly left to the Americans. Too bad, because the EU was definitely a not insignificant role to play, such as intermediary between Turkey and Israel at the time of rising tensions following the IDF assault on the fleet.

In his defense, the High Representative did not yet have structures, organization and networks tailored to the requirements of its missions. SEAE yet endorsed the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, had not yet been established. The 29 ambassadors of the European Union, which will replace the delegations of the European Commission, will be appointed in mid-September. In the medium term will require about 3 years for all staff required to operate the EAS are minimal up by Poul Chrisoffersen, special adviser to Ms Ashton.

Parliamentary procedure, which is supposed to come into force on approval by EEAS Parliament has been difficult and painstaking. Many politicians, both right and left and all nationalities, did not appreciate the pressure exerted by Ashton and European capitals on the vote, which they perceived as a reduction of the sovereignty of EP report to the European Council (composed by Heads of State and Government). Or how remarked that European institutions have become the scene of a power struggle between two kinds of sovereignty (the National Council for supranational Parliament). It becomes clear that the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, he has made Europe a functional, has not settled the issue crucial to the future of political Europe. When
Ashton wrote in French newspaper Le Monde 30 July 2010, " Our goal is to make foreign policy in a modern way, differently and better. Not compete or duplicate what our Member States, but to seek to add value and play the power that is ours when we acting on behalf of the Union , "she said nothing concrete, or very little, unless you read between the lines: it will not exceed the member states which remain sovereign foreign policy.

The EAS is not an organ of diplomatic initiative. is a tool to build consensus among different foreign policies of states and integrate more closely diplomacy. There is concern in these conditions that the effort will be provided to harmonize diplomatic choices of different European countries will be so much energy that will not be oriented to decision making and rapid initiatives on an international stage that requires yet more responsive than ever.
These are very clearly the national diplomatic networks that remain unavoidable. Older, more developed, more experienced. They remain the main tool of influence, not power, nation states of Europe in the world. The French diplomatic network, the world's second largest, is certainly older, sometimes dusty, but nevertheless essential as it is developed and implemented on all continents and will be a relay of all natural European foreign policy. But it is hard to imagine France, then delegate sovereignty to a supranational level is one of the latest tools of influence in the world, giving it a leading position in power relations within the EU.

However, the EAS has much to do! Two examples: the "strategic partnerships" and Iran . Two critical issues in international relations of the next decade and for which national states in Europe, alone or scattered, may not be effective.

"A strategic partnership is to improve the political, diplomatic, economic, commercial and cultural relations with another key player in international relations, selected and targeted. In other words, with powers like the U.S., where China. The prototype of these strategic partnerships for Pakistan, with which the EU is currently reviewing all its relations following the humanitarian aid it provided to victims of recent floods. But look at the interests of EU Strategic Partnership / Chine.Pour develop strong relations with the Chinese giant, it will act as a European giant, that is to say as a whole economic, as a Union economic and monetary policy - and not in a myriad of states. It will also
a uniform policy on Iran . The EAS is there any sense. The diplomatic opportunity for the EU is enormous: the U.S. can not operate in Iran with whom diplomatic ties were severed formal and traditional. Especially, it is with the EU and the weapon of economic sanctions against Tehran may be most effective.
The sanctions imposed by Europe against Iran in July last go much further than those promulgated by the U.S. or the UN. They also have the ability - unlike the U.S. sanctions - to hit Iran's economy at a vulnerable point, which represents half of state revenues Iranian energy sector. By prohibiting investment, technical assistance and technology transfer to Iran, Europe is the regime of Ahmadinejad in a difficult position since, in somewhat modernized its refinery operations, it imports 43% of gasoline it consumes.

You can not assess, for the moment, the potential impact of these sanctions. But it is clear that Europe can play a significant role in this matter, on which the United States are struggling. Provided she has the means to "speak with one voice."

Welcome Message For A Guest

Tax German Banking: An opportunity for Europe monetary

The German government adopted August 25, 2010 a proposed tax on bank profits. However criticized, this initiative illustrates the contribution of theoretical economics institutions concerned to stabilize.

The establishment of the ECB as an independent authority had rewarded the efforts of Kydland and Prescott (1977). They had demonstrated the time-inconsistency of monetary policy (a policy of low inflation may be quickly followed by an inflationary policy). A first step supported by Germany for the project in the euro area.

The success of European monetary policy to face financial crisis of 2007 raised the gaps budgetary policies of different member states. Structural problems, advances that have erupted in recent months with countries like Greece or Portugal. These difficulties are closely related to the support of governments to the attention of the great leaders of banking. In sum, monetary policy has eased the macroeconomic crisis while governments have avoided the crisis by micro rescue of several banks.

The German initiative proves to be a way of preventing bank runs . Three solutions are proposed by the economic literature. The first is the force that narrow banking financial intermediaries have sufficient funds to repay depositors in case of crisis. The second approach was proposed by Diamond and Dybvig in 1983 and is to establish a public system of deposit insurance financed by a levy on all deposits. A third and final proposal is that the lender of last resort source of moral hazard. Hazards which have multiplied in 2008 and 2009 when states have recapitalized many banks. In sum, if the third proposal has already been "adopted", the second is valid.

Germany does not impose a fee for each applicant, however the "bank tax" applies to financial intermediaries within a limit of 15% of their net income. Certainly There remains a incentive to risk taking, since some banks will be saved in case of future crises, but the allocation of this fund a few banks in difficulties may exclude others, resulting in a risk-taking limited . In addition, the establishment of this fund encourages companies to increase their capital base and diversify their activities.

Two challenges remain ahead. The first is extend this policy throughout the European Union . This idea is not only desirable for each country taken separately (France supports the initiative), it opens for European governance as monetary and fiscal facilitating homogenisation of the competitiveness of financial players in the eurozone. The establishment of a new independent authority in charge of a European fund would enhance the credibility of the European Central Bank.

A second challenge is to develop an evaluation grid banking institutions could take advantage of these bank charges. Determine debt ratios as capitalization would be a first step to encourage institutions to strengthen their balance sheets. The tax credit would serve more only to limit the use of public funds supplied by taxpayers. Better tax would encourage financial institutions to adopt sustainable growth strategies and thus indirectly reduce the risk of further systemic crises, in agreement with new prudential .