In this market, there are many Real Estate opportunities that can fructify in high returns.
I found out htat this course is useful for those who want to understand "Real Satte Inversment" click Here
sábado, 25 de septiembre de 2010
domingo, 19 de septiembre de 2010
Migration and the Wealth of Nations
Migration and the Wealth of Nations
By Alcides Hernandez
Adam Smith, a classic economist, wrote a book that he called “The Wealth of Nations”. His legacy to the economical theory was the “growing theory”. The main thesis being that the wealth of nations had its origin in the quantitative increase of the economy. And for there to be growth, the specialization of work, the accumulation of capital, and the free market were necessary. According to Smith, to achieve the welfare state, a society should hope for changes that originated in the individual. Meanwhile man, in the context of the economical process, should be selfish in his relationships with each other nobody should interfere in the life of other persons. Then, progress would depend on the individual initiative and in the empathy between buyer and seller in their trading relations.
The migration from Europe to America, which was intense, and that could be considered the elongated arm of the industrial revolution due to the big support it had given to the process, was never mentioned as a resource to achieve the improvement of the economy. This being because the theory supposed that wealth only came from the industrial production in the internal market. It is interesting to see that is was the same migrants that moved thousands of tons of marvelous metals (gold and silver), from California, Central America, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and other countries, with destination to Europe. And there were also tons of raw materials and food products. All those flows were useful to decrease costs and increase profits of the capitalists the industrial revolution.
Migration became a turning point at the summit of the industrial revolution, with a big global impact, a great support to achieve and improve the levels of accumulation of capital. This was never considered in the study of the social relations of production, in Smith´s theory and followers. They ignored migration, as something supplementary of the object of study of political economics. Nevertheless, history shows that migrants have given and made big changes where they have gone. They are an example of hard work, they have contributed with a creative culture and are motivated and willing to archive big and successful projects. But, as was mentioned before, the theory ignored those contributions to the real world.
The neo-liberal theory, which has been supported by the principles of Smith’s theory, maintains that the growth of the economy is a result of the intensification of international trade, the free market and the individual initiative. Earlier in history it was supposed that for the prosperity of a country it was necessary to have more overseas exports, which would increase foreign currency in the central banks and consequently the generation of employment all around the world. On the other hand, the increase in imports would signify more movement in commerce and local services. They deduce that, in the process, it should fill the barrel of economics until it spilled over and with it, the government could make policies for a welfare state, addressed to the poor people. All of this is possible with the liberalization and unregulated economics, more free market and private initiative.
In this modern version, the issue of migration is too forgotten, never considered as an object of study. The evidence of recent researches shows that the migrants are the people who have saved the economic model. When they left their countries, they reduced the employment pressure in the internal markets. When they found a job overseas they began to remit money. The financial system was favored and supported because it had received the consignments in foreign currency that workers send annually to their families. The evidences in Latin America are more than enough. According to IADB (Inter American Development Bank), the level of foreign currencies in some countries is more important that the domestic product. In six countries they exceed 10 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP): Haiti 17%, Nicaragua 14.4%, El Salvador 12.6%, Jamaica 11.7%, Dominican Republic and Ecuador 10%. The same source has reported that migrants send annually to Latin America around US $40 Billion, being Mexico the most benefited country. If this represent a 10 per cent of their total wages, then they spend in the internal market where they are working, around US$ 400 Billion.
Then again, they work from sunrise until nightfall at farms, plantations, constructions, factories, commercial and service industries and do all the unattractive tasks that the citizens don´t want to do. All of these are contributions that migrants are doing to support the accumulation of capital in the rich countries.
When the theory is compared in history, without a doubt, the theorists have ignored the migrants. With the difference that actually the problems for them are more complex than historic migration. They have few opportunities in the employment market. It has been made worse by the economic crisis. Rejection and racial discrimination are always a constant. Some politicians have criticized this issue considering that governments are insensitive in refusing the migrants. President Calderon from Mexico, on May 19, 2010, addressed The Congress of the United States, and said: “..Mexico is in disagreement with the Arizona Law because it introduces the terrible idea of using racial profiling as a base for law enforcement…”.
This is migration, a problem that hasn´t been resolved in developing countries and rich countries; but as always, it has been ignored by the economic theories as an important issue to produce and increase the wealth of nations. And now this issue has even been forgotten by the politicians.
June, 2010
By Alcides Hernandez
Adam Smith, a classic economist, wrote a book that he called “The Wealth of Nations”. His legacy to the economical theory was the “growing theory”. The main thesis being that the wealth of nations had its origin in the quantitative increase of the economy. And for there to be growth, the specialization of work, the accumulation of capital, and the free market were necessary. According to Smith, to achieve the welfare state, a society should hope for changes that originated in the individual. Meanwhile man, in the context of the economical process, should be selfish in his relationships with each other nobody should interfere in the life of other persons. Then, progress would depend on the individual initiative and in the empathy between buyer and seller in their trading relations.
The migration from Europe to America, which was intense, and that could be considered the elongated arm of the industrial revolution due to the big support it had given to the process, was never mentioned as a resource to achieve the improvement of the economy. This being because the theory supposed that wealth only came from the industrial production in the internal market. It is interesting to see that is was the same migrants that moved thousands of tons of marvelous metals (gold and silver), from California, Central America, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and other countries, with destination to Europe. And there were also tons of raw materials and food products. All those flows were useful to decrease costs and increase profits of the capitalists the industrial revolution.
Migration became a turning point at the summit of the industrial revolution, with a big global impact, a great support to achieve and improve the levels of accumulation of capital. This was never considered in the study of the social relations of production, in Smith´s theory and followers. They ignored migration, as something supplementary of the object of study of political economics. Nevertheless, history shows that migrants have given and made big changes where they have gone. They are an example of hard work, they have contributed with a creative culture and are motivated and willing to archive big and successful projects. But, as was mentioned before, the theory ignored those contributions to the real world.
The neo-liberal theory, which has been supported by the principles of Smith’s theory, maintains that the growth of the economy is a result of the intensification of international trade, the free market and the individual initiative. Earlier in history it was supposed that for the prosperity of a country it was necessary to have more overseas exports, which would increase foreign currency in the central banks and consequently the generation of employment all around the world. On the other hand, the increase in imports would signify more movement in commerce and local services. They deduce that, in the process, it should fill the barrel of economics until it spilled over and with it, the government could make policies for a welfare state, addressed to the poor people. All of this is possible with the liberalization and unregulated economics, more free market and private initiative.
In this modern version, the issue of migration is too forgotten, never considered as an object of study. The evidence of recent researches shows that the migrants are the people who have saved the economic model. When they left their countries, they reduced the employment pressure in the internal markets. When they found a job overseas they began to remit money. The financial system was favored and supported because it had received the consignments in foreign currency that workers send annually to their families. The evidences in Latin America are more than enough. According to IADB (Inter American Development Bank), the level of foreign currencies in some countries is more important that the domestic product. In six countries they exceed 10 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP): Haiti 17%, Nicaragua 14.4%, El Salvador 12.6%, Jamaica 11.7%, Dominican Republic and Ecuador 10%. The same source has reported that migrants send annually to Latin America around US $40 Billion, being Mexico the most benefited country. If this represent a 10 per cent of their total wages, then they spend in the internal market where they are working, around US$ 400 Billion.
Then again, they work from sunrise until nightfall at farms, plantations, constructions, factories, commercial and service industries and do all the unattractive tasks that the citizens don´t want to do. All of these are contributions that migrants are doing to support the accumulation of capital in the rich countries.
When the theory is compared in history, without a doubt, the theorists have ignored the migrants. With the difference that actually the problems for them are more complex than historic migration. They have few opportunities in the employment market. It has been made worse by the economic crisis. Rejection and racial discrimination are always a constant. Some politicians have criticized this issue considering that governments are insensitive in refusing the migrants. President Calderon from Mexico, on May 19, 2010, addressed The Congress of the United States, and said: “..Mexico is in disagreement with the Arizona Law because it introduces the terrible idea of using racial profiling as a base for law enforcement…”.
This is migration, a problem that hasn´t been resolved in developing countries and rich countries; but as always, it has been ignored by the economic theories as an important issue to produce and increase the wealth of nations. And now this issue has even been forgotten by the politicians.
June, 2010
domingo, 22 de agosto de 2010
Migration and Social Exclusion
MIGRATION AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
By Alcides Hernández
The topic of migration is actually one of the biggest problems of our world, which has resulted from the crisis of the capital accumulation process. The social exclusion due to the poverty of southern countries and the labor exclusion due to the economic crisis of the northern countries have both coincided making migration come to a dead end. This evil without apparent alternatives has created a great fear, fundamentally to the Hispanic people living in the United States where most migrants from Latin America reside.
The social exclusion generated from a historical structural crisis has increased because of globalization. It has increased the motivation of poor people from the developing countries to reach the first world countries where they expect to find an employment paradise. Unfortunately having achieved their goal they are confronted with the reality of unemployment. Anyone who is poor and satisfied in their countries, assumes a great risk to go to a destination where they will be refused. Nevertheless, unemployment and the lack of opportunities to improve the quality of their lives are factors that induce many families to migrate. We also have to mention that in the poor countries the younger population expects migration to be their solution. They expect a migratory opportunity and this has become a collective conduct that is very difficult to change and control. The only way to stop this is to offer development in their countries which will offer opportunities to all.
This problem goes beyond the economic vision. It has now become a big political problem and is straining the relationships between the people of the United States and Latin America. The case of Arizona, for example, has made Latin Americans have strong views regarding law 1070. If the politicians have the interest in offering the best alternatives to long lasting solutions this will depend on the important decisions they make, the news media reflects that it is a fact that migration has been considered as a marginal subject in the controversial politics of the United States.
Politicians in Washington have rejected dealing with this issue, considering it a hot potato that will reduce their political capital. The extremes are very dangerous and in the case of the American right wing have become an invitation to racial profiling. Some of the measures being taken in the application of the Immigration law are destroying families made up of immigrants and citizens. We are on the verge of a collective psychosis.
The New York Times, dated July 1st, 2010, published a synthesis of a speech made by President Barak Obama who made important references about the migratory problem in the United States. This is the first time that an American President refers to migration as a national problem. Before other political leaders only refered to the issue with indifference and limited apathy. Mr. Obama has engaged with the Hispanic people since his political campaign to help solve the problems of the undocumented and to legitimize their status.
President Obama has accepted that the immigration system is failing, and is seeking solutions to try to find ways of solving, this problem. “Our Nation”, he said, “has the right an obligation to control its borders, but sealing off the vast space with troops and fences alone is a fantasy. And no amount of security at the border does anything, about the 11 million undocumented who have already crossed it”. Mr. Obama called for enabling these potential Americans to “get right with the law,” and for fixing the system of legal immigration, which is too inefficient for the country’s own good.
The president commented on the extremism of Arizona, where the law 1070, emitted by the current Governor, took effect on July 29, 2010. According to it any authority of the police can check the papers of anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant and to have discriminatory treatment. According to the President, it makes a crime out of being a foreigner in the state without papers — in most cases a civil violation of federal law. He confirmed what was expressed by the Mexican President, Felipe Calderón, who said that the Arizona Law is an invitation to racial profiling. The argument Mr. Obama talked about was an impediment to effective policy making and usurpation of federal authority. He said, evoking a future where “different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country”. The circumstances call for an independent state inside the Federal State.
According to the comment of the New York Times, “Mr. Obama has presidential powers, and he should use them. He has given the border more troops. Now he should seek to lift the burden of fear from peaceable immigrant communities. His administration is widely expected to bring a lawsuit soon challenging the deeply unjust Arizona law. He is a constitutional scholar, and could have written the complaint himself, but his address did not mention a lawsuit”.
The problem has been formulated meanwhile the Hispanics are waiting for an effective answer.
August, 2010
By Alcides Hernández
The topic of migration is actually one of the biggest problems of our world, which has resulted from the crisis of the capital accumulation process. The social exclusion due to the poverty of southern countries and the labor exclusion due to the economic crisis of the northern countries have both coincided making migration come to a dead end. This evil without apparent alternatives has created a great fear, fundamentally to the Hispanic people living in the United States where most migrants from Latin America reside.
The social exclusion generated from a historical structural crisis has increased because of globalization. It has increased the motivation of poor people from the developing countries to reach the first world countries where they expect to find an employment paradise. Unfortunately having achieved their goal they are confronted with the reality of unemployment. Anyone who is poor and satisfied in their countries, assumes a great risk to go to a destination where they will be refused. Nevertheless, unemployment and the lack of opportunities to improve the quality of their lives are factors that induce many families to migrate. We also have to mention that in the poor countries the younger population expects migration to be their solution. They expect a migratory opportunity and this has become a collective conduct that is very difficult to change and control. The only way to stop this is to offer development in their countries which will offer opportunities to all.
This problem goes beyond the economic vision. It has now become a big political problem and is straining the relationships between the people of the United States and Latin America. The case of Arizona, for example, has made Latin Americans have strong views regarding law 1070. If the politicians have the interest in offering the best alternatives to long lasting solutions this will depend on the important decisions they make, the news media reflects that it is a fact that migration has been considered as a marginal subject in the controversial politics of the United States.
Politicians in Washington have rejected dealing with this issue, considering it a hot potato that will reduce their political capital. The extremes are very dangerous and in the case of the American right wing have become an invitation to racial profiling. Some of the measures being taken in the application of the Immigration law are destroying families made up of immigrants and citizens. We are on the verge of a collective psychosis.
The New York Times, dated July 1st, 2010, published a synthesis of a speech made by President Barak Obama who made important references about the migratory problem in the United States. This is the first time that an American President refers to migration as a national problem. Before other political leaders only refered to the issue with indifference and limited apathy. Mr. Obama has engaged with the Hispanic people since his political campaign to help solve the problems of the undocumented and to legitimize their status.
President Obama has accepted that the immigration system is failing, and is seeking solutions to try to find ways of solving, this problem. “Our Nation”, he said, “has the right an obligation to control its borders, but sealing off the vast space with troops and fences alone is a fantasy. And no amount of security at the border does anything, about the 11 million undocumented who have already crossed it”. Mr. Obama called for enabling these potential Americans to “get right with the law,” and for fixing the system of legal immigration, which is too inefficient for the country’s own good.
The president commented on the extremism of Arizona, where the law 1070, emitted by the current Governor, took effect on July 29, 2010. According to it any authority of the police can check the papers of anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant and to have discriminatory treatment. According to the President, it makes a crime out of being a foreigner in the state without papers — in most cases a civil violation of federal law. He confirmed what was expressed by the Mexican President, Felipe Calderón, who said that the Arizona Law is an invitation to racial profiling. The argument Mr. Obama talked about was an impediment to effective policy making and usurpation of federal authority. He said, evoking a future where “different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country”. The circumstances call for an independent state inside the Federal State.
According to the comment of the New York Times, “Mr. Obama has presidential powers, and he should use them. He has given the border more troops. Now he should seek to lift the burden of fear from peaceable immigrant communities. His administration is widely expected to bring a lawsuit soon challenging the deeply unjust Arizona law. He is a constitutional scholar, and could have written the complaint himself, but his address did not mention a lawsuit”.
The problem has been formulated meanwhile the Hispanics are waiting for an effective answer.
August, 2010
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)