Fiscal policy to targets the total level of spending, the total composition of spending, or both in an economy allowing  the government to influence the economy using spending and taxation to ensure that the spending and revenue collections happen appropriately and create a healthy economic growth.

There are two types of fiscal policy, the first on being expansionary. This kind of fiscal policy is used to stimulate economic growth through either the increment of spends from the government or though cutting taxes- frees up businesses to hire more workers to pursue business ventures. The second type is contractionary, which its goal is to slow economic growth to stamp inflation. To accomplish that the government increases the taxes and cut on spends.

The two main tools of a fiscal policy are taxation- income, capital gains from investments, property, and sales and government spending-  subsidies, transfer payments including welfare programs, public works projects, and government salaries.

The Fiscal Policy is truly important to our daily lives, how do you think your government should use it?

sources: wallstreermojo, the balance

The Human Race is destroying Mother Nature, it’s oceans, it’s forests, it’s air, it’s biodiversity by spending scare resources and using them for their own personal ambition. Even though we deeply injured Earth, there are several ways to stop this atrocity and save the Globe, by decreasing or even stop several practices. However when it comes to certain “solutions” they could result in an economic crash, therefore the question is no longer “can we save the planet?” but “how can we save the planet without crashing our economy?”.

In order to solve this problem it is critical that the countries stop aspiring economic growth so quickly that runs down the world’s natural capital. Thus it is essential to create economic growth that is Green- without damaging or destroying the environment, and at the same time improve the environment without stopping innovation and economic growth.

Columbia economist and mathematician Graciela Chichilnisky proposes a market in which the captures carbon is vended for commercial use, in that way we can remove the CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere and guarantee that it stays out of the atmosphere.

Other solution is “Regenerative agriculture”- farming and grazing practices that invert climate change though the reconstruction of soil organic matter and restoring degraded soil biodiversity resulting in both carbon drawdown and improving the water cycle.

Renewable Energy is one of the most trusted solutions, not only because it’s one of the main alternatives on fossil fuels but also because is poses new challenges for wages and employment in the present and future.

Besides these three options, policies that recognize the commercial worth of resources, and offers rewards for actions that preserve rather than deplete them, offers the greatest chance of ecological protection.

To sum up, it is truly import to find a balance between Economy and Ecology, since the survival of the Human Race depends on it. But are these strategies enough? Comment below what you believe we should do to save the environment without degreasing the economy.

source: Mother Jones, NewEurope, SocialStudies

 “Environment” is a big and controversial topic nowadays. We often see news on how to save the planet and how to implement politics to get to that goal. But is this topic so “black and white”?

Industry has a big environmental impact, from the air emissions, wastewater, Land Pollution, Marine and Coastal Pollution, Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste to Pesticides and Pest Control Products, Asbestos and Harmful Dust and radiation.

Although industrial development usually means the increasing of pollution, industrialization plays a vital role on economic development.

Industrialization allows countries to make the best use of their scarce resources and pursue to increase both quantity and quality of the manufactured goods by the company, which contributes to the GNP- gross national product. Besides that, industrialization allows a higher standard of living, since that in a industrialized society workers’ labor has a bigger value, which means, today’s worker has a higher productivity as well as a higher income, rising the income for “ordinary” people.

Since the country’s economy depends on the production. Since the export of raw material alone cannot achieve a rapid rate of economic growth, industrialization is the best way of providing economic stability. Moreover, Industrialization improves the balance of payments as it changes the design of foreign trade by increasing the export of manufactured goods, which are more profitable in foreign exchange and at the same time, processing the raw material at home curtails the import of goods, thereby helping to conserve foreign exchange. It also stimulates progress In other sectors of the economy.

Industrialization offers an increased on employment opportunities as well as promoting specialized labor.  It also allows a greater control of economic Activity, since it’s easier to regulate and control than other industries- Agricultural industries, and it can be “easily” expended in order to respond to price, cost of, and demand. Besides that, provides greater technological progress thought the use of advanced technology to increase production and quality of product and reduces costs and  ultimately helps to widen the market.

Since it increases worker’s income, it also enhance their capacity to save, that by cumulative effect stimulate economic growth. In addition, it encourages the development of markets and the increase of government Revenues by increasing the supply of goods for both external and internal markets.

With this said, what’s your take on the Industry? Is it worth destroying our planet because of it? Or do you think we should end it ? or find a way to have both?

sources: owlcation and IMOEP

Campaign contributions are a common thing when it comes to elections, even though it allows runners to take its candidatures to another level, it also comes with a cost.

First of all,  it’s important to know what is a Campaign Contributions- assets raised to endorse candidates, political parties, or policy initiatives and referenda.

Besides that it’s also very important to know that’s prohibit by law, for the candidate to use the donations for personal use. Therefore donation can only be used in the following ways:

·         Donations to charities, as long as the candidate doesn’t receive compensation from the organizations and the donation is not used by the charity to benefit the candidate.

·         A donation of a maximum of $2000 to another presidential candidate.

·         Unlimited transfers to a local, state or national political party committee.

·         Donations to state and local candidates or transfer to a future election campaign committee of the same candidate (Bernie Sanders transferred $1.5 million collected from his Senate campaign committee to his presidential committee).

Money is a big part when it comes to winning an election, as studies shows that when more money is spend the higher possibility to win the race.

With this said, donors usually have a big influence on the government when their candidate wins. For example, in 2016 American presidential election, most of Trump’s donors where oil companies. Now that he’s in office, he has shown in support for oil companies, leaving many to speculate that Trump is paying those companies back for their support.  

Other examples is the American laws regulating gun-ownerships laws, its estimated that the congress wins $240000 to support, yet they can received $56000000 to oppose. Similar things happen to pass CISPA Cybersecurty bill, the approval of Keystone XL Pipeline transporting oil from Alberta to Texas, between many, making these episode quite frequent, not only in the US but all over the world.

There are several examples of corporate influence in government decisions such as lowering taxes for rich people,  lowering minimum wage, the not creation of “equal pay” policies, amongst others.

Campaign contributions give its donors political power and influence over a government, influencing the country’s policies and therefore its economy and wealth as well as it population.

What do you think about this ? Do you believe that’s that easy to buy a government? How do you think we should precede to help fight this ? 

                          

Source: CNN, Washington Post, Social Studies, business insider

First of all, let’s start with a brief definition of immigration. Immigration is defined as “The action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country” (oxfords' dictionary),  that is international movement of people into another country they aren’t native or citizens of. There are several positive reason why countries should accept immigrants as well as motives why they shouldn’t.

Immigration plays a significant part on today’s economy, since it’s existence diversifies local economies, increases the population base, helps on the creation of a global market, creates a fair level of population distribution, promotes entrepreneurism and economic recovery , as well as raising the host country’s GDP.

However, immigration has it’s problems as well. Besides creating an over population issues, it also encourages disease transmissions and wage disparities. In addition it can reduce quality of work as well as increase “stress” on public services, such as health and education. It can be the cause of crimes and racism.

Immigration is a everyday topic not only on a economic level but also on a social level, as some argue that immigration is part of the globalized world and provides richness on a social economic level, others argue it’s not safe to let others enter. Therefore, immigrations laws are rather important. It allow us to secure our country without risking others lives.

Immigration law in the European Union is based on reducing incentives for irregular immigration, border management (saving lives and secure external borders), developing a common asylum policy and establishing a new policy on regular immigration- updating the “blue card”system, setting priorities fresh for integration policies and improving the benefits of migration policy fo the individuals concerned.

On the other hand, the American’s chose to use more harsh laws. After making a campaign based on anti-immigration’s policies, Donald Trump decided to implement three controversial laws:

·         Construction of a wall to divide Mexico and the USA

·         Travel Ban for Arab People ( January 27, 2017- March 16, 2017)

·         Creation of Immigration’s camps

.To Sum up, immigration is a natural process that has happen for several causes, it has a big part on any economy, on both developed and undeveloped countries, and it can be a cause of strength or not. Therefore, is at most important that politics study this phenomenon seriously, for immigrant to seize the opportunities that are offered to them without decreasing the hosts’ quality of life.

Based on this paper, how do you believe our countries should act on immigration, both legal and illegal, or even on the refugees’ crises? Do you believe we, the develop countries, should close our doors to the outside world and protect ourselves or do you believe we should allow people a better chance at a better life?

Sources: Europarl, arabgigest, cbs

Brexit is a referendum result proposed to the British people, in order to decide if they would leave the European Union or not. 

In June 23, 2016 the British decided that the benefits of belonging to the EU was no longer superior to the costs of the free movement of immigration. Therefore, the UK, alongside the European Union agreed that the UK’s exits from the economic and political partnership that is the EU would take date on March 29,2019, giving 2 years for both parties to get to an agreement. There are three possible outcomes:

1.     Keep May’s deal or accept one similar

2.     Make no deal- “No Deal Brexit”

3.     Vote again

On March 12, 2019 the United Kingdom’s parliament voted against Prime Minister Theresa May agreement with the European Union. Agreement that was divided in two parts- blinding withdraw agreement and non-binding set of principles to guide future negotiations, that stated that the UK remains within the Customs Union, there would be no tariffs on each other’s imports, the UK would have complete access to the capital, any European citizen could live in the UK without a work visa and the UK would abide by the European court of Judgement and the European Union’s laws.

Since the UK’s parliament didn’t get to any conclusion, it’s possible for both the UK and the EU to get to an agreement to extend the Brexit process.

          There are several consequences for both the UK and the EU if Brexit truly happens. First of all, studies say that the United Kingdom’s economy will slow down thanks to the uncertainty surrounding the final outcome. In case of a Hard Brexit- besides leaving the EU, the UK would no longer participate in the single market of the EU, the cost on exports will raise, the employment rate would fall- is estimated that 5000 people will lose jobs on London alone, companies would will no longer use an English-speaking entry into the European Union’s Economy, housing prices would fall, England would lose it’s ability to bid on public contractors in any EU’s country- especially banking and the United Kingdom could lose Scotland, who voted for remain in EU..

          There’s a possibility of both parties don’t get to an agreement – “No deal Brexit”. In that situation, there would be no transaction period and no guaranties on citizen’s rights, therefore it’s estimated that the tariffs would be reposed, making the price of the imports to increase, causing an increasing on inflation on food and decrease of the standard of living, as one third of the food in the UK comes from importation.

Furthermore, the European Union suffers greatly as well, besides losing a big economy, there is a possibility for them to lose others as well or even disintegrate. Since the decision to advance on Brexit happen, anti-immigration’s parties won great strength in Europe, making it possible for this phenomenon to expand over Europe, especially France and Germany. Making the EU lose two of it’s greatest and biggest economies and later dissolve.

Even though the departure of the UK from the Union still hasn’t happen, it’s safe to say that it would be harmful for both ways, and that both parties should make an effort to stay united.

         

source: the balance  , BBC, BBC