une reference en ce qui concerne l'excellence de la maitrise de l'outil rhetorique et politique contemporain...
...en fait,
...probablement, le 'mec' plus ultra 'au sein?' du vieux continent......
...dont certains evenements dus au(x) cours de l'histoire,
l'ont malheureusement 'oblige...?' a devenir pertinent...
"LAST month, unemployment hit 4.4% in America, the lowest level the nation has seen since 2001. Yet at the same time, Democrats are vowing to protect American jobs from foreign competition by limiting trade, gobalisation, and especially outsourcing. If gobalisation is sending jobs abroad, how is it that unemployment is so low?" |
"The term unstable molecule is used for very reactive species, i.e., short-lived assemblies (resonances) of electrons and nuclei, such as radicals, molecular ions, Rydberg molecules, transition state(s)?, Van der Waals complexes, or systems of colliding atoms as in Bose-Einstein condensates. |
'...Even on issues on which Labour has traditionally been strong, such as health care and education, the Conservatives are now ahead, despite the fact that Mr Diaz had no discernible policies on either. ...' |
'...Attack shops, selling provocative clothes for children (?) and call for corporate social responsibility (???). ..' |
'...One way to make the state do less is to hand the job of delivering more public services to providers from the private and voluntary sectors. ...' |
|
'...As Labour's espousal of market economics has shown, stealing the other party's clothes can ba a successful startegy. |
'...Mr Greene is all but substance and, sadly for his polling figures, no style. ...' |
The Iraq war is costing America hundreds of billions of dollars. But would containment have been much cheaper?
While George Bush and his opponents argue about Iraq, the war of words is turning into a firestorm of figures. Iraq has already cost America more than $250 billion, and economists are now debating the future price tag. Estimates of the eventual cost range from just over $400 billion to more than $2 trillion. This battle of numbers is as much about politics as money.
Even if the war were not quite as expensive as some make out, many Americans would still be totally opposed to Mr Bush's handling of Iraq. His critics say that he rushed into war, lied about his reasons, failed to plan adequately and botched the execution. Naturally enough, they view the high and rising cost of the war as evidence of those transgressions.
The predictions of Mr Bush's team were clearly wrong. His top economic adviser at the time, Larry Lindsey, said the war would cost $100 billion-200 billion, and Democrats on the House Budget Committee agreed. Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, backed an alternative guess of $50 billion-60 billion. Both sets of figures have proved too low.
How high will the price tag go? Harvard University's Linda Bilmes and Columbia University's Joseph Stiglitz (a Nobel laureate and chief economic adviser in Bill Clinton's administration), reckon that the war could cost America an eye-catching $2.24 trillion through 2015. Scott Wallsten and Katrina Kosec, in a study for the AEi-Brookings Joint Centre, predict that the war will eventually cost America $540 billion-670 billion. (On the AEi-Brookings website, they have also posted an interactive calculator that lets visitors make their own forecastst.) A third study, by three economists at the University of Chicago's business school - Steven Davis, Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel - and based on what was known before the war, gives seven scenarios for it, of which the likeliest two (with some hindsight) suggest a final cost between $410 billion and $630 billion.
Why is the Bilmes/Stiglitz estimate so high? Partly because they attribute a number of economic ills—oil prices, interest costs and foregone government projects - to the war in Iraq. These seem questionable claims. Oil prices are indeed much higher now than in early 2003, but the war's impact on global oil supplies has been relatively small; a surging world economy has driven up demand. Including the interest payments on America's Iraq spending is also strange. Alan Krueger, a Princeton University economist writing in the New York Times, has likened this to counting interest payments on a home mortgage as part of the purchase price. As for government projects, that estimate hinges largely on the perennial debate over whether more public investment would yield net benefits for the economy.
Stripping out these "macroeconomic effects" still leaves a forecast of between $840 billion and $1.19 trillion through 2015, much more expensive than the others. Two of the studies come up with similar tallies for soldiers' pay, weapons, ammunition and supplies; but the estimates for these from Ms Bilmes and Mr Stiglitz are about $100 billion or so higher.
Casualties — the human half of the "blood and treasure" equation - are also a big part of the cost to America, and all three studies treat them as such. Efforts to attach dollar figures to human life offend some people, but governments and courts do it often for insurance cases, disability payments, safety regulation and so forth.
The Chicago economists treat these in a similar way to Mr Wallsten and Ms Kosec, attaching a cost to every soldier killed in Iraq of $6m-7m. Both studies assume an average cost of $1.3m for every wounded soldier. Ms Bilmes and Mr Stiglitz, again going further, add on to this another $3 billion annually that they expect the government to spend on veterans' care over the next 20-40 years, and also add another $70 billion-no billion to the AEi-Brookings study's injury costs. Some economists say this is double counting; Ms Bilmes says it is not. Her paper is not clear enough to judge.
Both the Bilmes/Stiglitz and Wallsten/ Kosec estimates - but not those of the University of Chicago—also assume that reservists earn less while serving in Iraq than in their civilian jobs, and count the income shortfall for those families as an economic cost. But a recent study by the Rand Corporation, based on payroll records for all reservists, found that those being deployed to Iraq make more money than they were earning as civilians. The popular belief that their pay drops appears to stem from flawed surveys that drew few responses-mostly, no doubt, from the minority of reservists who are losing income.
The cost of fingers crossed
A war costing $410 billion-630 billion sounds pretty grim. But the three University of Chicago economists also evaluate a wide span of possible outcomes if America had chosen the alternative to war. Their analysis includes four pre-war scenarios for containment and a range of probabilities for various contingencies. These suggest that reining in Iraq and hoping for the best could reasonably have been expected to cost $250 billion-700 billion.
They point out that even before the September 2001 terrorist attacks, America had 28,000 troops in the region around Iraq, as well as some 30 ships and 200 aircraft enforcing no-fly zones. The trio estimate that these forces alone were costing America $11 billion-18 billion a year.
In one sense this figure is too high, since it attributes all of America's military presence in the region to containment. On the other hand, America would probably have had to spend more on curbing Iraq after 2002, since the sanctions regime was weakening. Another cost of containment is impossible to quantify: the propaganda provided to al-Oaeda by America's military bases in Saudi Arabia, and by the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis as a result of sanctions. But it is doubtful whether that propaganda weighed as heavy as America's invasion of a sovereign (if rogue) state, and the 30,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the war began.
Evidemment, «The Economist», n’a pas de ‘notions’ de la façon dont sont construits les 'barrages fluviaux' ni les ‘barrages politico-socio-économiques en fonction du temps'…et reste, pour certains, figé dans un passé nostalgique du toujours ‘pseudo-luisant’ « Empire 'accoudé'» …
‘Le temps est un concept développé pour représenter la variation du monde : l'Univers n'est jamais figé, les éléments qui le composent bougent, se transforment et évoluent.’ |
'Un barrage fluvial permet par exemple la régulation du débit d'une rivière ou d'un fleuve (favorisant ainsi le trafic fluvial), l'irrigation des cultures, une prévention relative des catastrophes naturelles (crues, inondations), par la création de lacs artificiels ou de réservoirs. Un barrage autorise aussi, sous certaines conditions, la production d'électricité (on parle alors de barrage hydro électrique), à un coût économique et environnemental acceptable. |
Toutefois, plus un projet est ambitieux, plus ses conséquences sont lourdes : en noyant des vallées entières, la construction d'un barrage peut provoquer à la fois des bouleversements humains en forçant des populations entières à se déplacer, et avoir un impact écologique non négligeable en changeant fondamentalement l'écosystème local (par exemple en empêchant la migration d'espèces aquatiques entre l'amont et l'aval d'un barrage : bien qu'obligatoires, les échelles à poissons ne sont, ni toujours présentes, ni toujours efficaces).' |
Fake conservative
“…Unfortunately, his overall indictment of the prezdent is less compelling than it should be. That is mainly because, like many othe Bush-bashing authors, Mr Barlett is too often driven to hyperbole. He suggests, for instance, that Mr Bush “may be the most protectionist president’ since Herbert Hoover, thanks to the imposition of temporary steel-tariffs in 2002 and the increase in farm subsidies. That is nonsense. Nixon, who imposed an across-the-board import surcharge in 1971, was more protectionist than Mr Bush.” |
Construction d’un barrage fluvial: en t0:
a / X = α (1) |
avec :
X = masse d’eau qui est retenue par le barrage
a = épaisseur du mur du barrage (a est const. en fonction de la hauteur, même si en réalité ce n'est pas vrai, ceci n'est qu'un modèle très simplifié afin d'essayer d'expliquer un comportement économique)
α = eau qu’on laisse passer afin de produire de l’énérgie ie. m/s, ou bien aire de l'ouverture par laquelle on laisse passer l’eau
t0 = temps
Donc :
quelle différence y-a-t-il entre :
La modification du barrage en t1 : (Nixon)
| (a + a’) / (X + x) = --> α (2) |
(a >> a') ; (X >> x)
∆X = (X + x)
∆a = (a + a’) ou bien
∆X dir. prop. à ∆a
ET:
Modification du barrage en t2 : (Bush)
|
(a + A) / (X + Y) = β (3) |
avec comme conditions:
(A --> n a) ; (Y --> m X)
(m ;n = nombres entiers positifs naturels avec n < < m) et
(a + a’) (doit être) < (a + A)
Si la traduction 'politico-socio-economique' de l'image de la construction du barrage fuvial en (1) est en fait:
X = Masse du pouvoir d’achat étranger
a = règlementations de cette masse d’achat (ie. mesures protectionnistes, ie. quotas, tarifs etc. etc.)
α et β (3) = degrés d’ouverture d’une économie
et par conséquence:
β (t2) << α (t1) |
Ce que 'Paolo' a toujours essaye d'expliquer:
Dans Monetary myopia (The Economist)
'...Yet the three biggest stockmarket bubbles in the past century - America's in the 1920s and 1990s and Japan in the 1980s - all developed when inflation was low: Arguably, Mr Greenspan has defined the role of monetary policy too narrowly. Inflation is often described as too much money chasing too few goods. But in a world awash with chepa money and with potent new sources of supply (cheap durable goods), such as China, to hold prices down, inflation will remain low and so fail to signal if an economy is overheating. ...'
Overreacting?
The French are in a tizzy over rumours of an American bid for Danone
TALK about paranoid. Suddenly, all of France is defending a national champion against a non-existent attack. This week, French politicians on all sides have been
talking gravely about the dangers of Danone, a big French food firm, falling into American hands. Even Dominique de Villepin, the prime minister, has promised to "defend the interests of France"
amid rumours of a pending bid by PepsiCo, one of the world's biggest food firms, for Danone, whose shares jumped as a result by over 13% on July i9th. No matter that Pepsi has denied building a
stake in Danone and declines to comment on reports of takeover talks.
Speculation about a bid for Danone has ebbed and flowed frequently in the past three years. Danone is focused on bottled water, dairy products and biscuits. It is
the world's largest yogurt maker. Its Evian water dominates one of the fastest-growing segments in the food industry. On July 2ist, it reported healthy net profits of €34701 ($44601) in the
first half of this year.
Yet this is the first time that the rumours of a bid for Danone have prompted such a political mobilisation-evidence of the extreme defensiveness of the country's
leaders since its voters said no to Europe's new constitution in May. Patrick Oilier, head of the economic affairs committee in the National Assembly, vowed to enlist the aid of French
institutional investors to defend Danone. On Jury igth, Laurent Fabius, a prominent Socialist politician, appealed to Jacques Chirac, France's president, to fight to keep Danone a Europe-based
French group. Le Figaro said that the rumours about a takeover of Danone were reviving memories of the "traumatism" of the takeover of Pechiney, a French aluminium maker, by Canada's
Alcan.
Danone has a special place among the jewels of corporate France-a food firm in the land of culinary excellence. Its
brand is one of the best known in Europe. Antoine Riboud, its founder, used to say that "Danone is like the cathedral of Chartres, and one does not buy the Chartres cathedral". Flis son Franck,
the current boss, says he is similarly committed to an independent Danone-though there is talk that a bid of €25 billion might do the trick. Of the big global food groups, Pepsi is widely
regarded as much the best fit for Danone. But how on earth will the French establishment react if the American firm actually makes an offer?
