ZAMKU.SANOK.PL

Witam wszystkich!
Z serwisu "ZSRE czyli UE":
"Cios dla UE (ZSRE - ZcU)
Wiceprzewodniczacy Konfederacji Przemyslu Niemieckiego Hans-Olaf Henkel
obawia sie, ze porozumienie w sprawie wolnego handlu, osiagniete na
szczycie amerykanskim w Quebecu, moze stac sie ciosem handlowym
wymierzonym w Europe. Zdaniem Henkla, uzgodniony w ubiegla niedziele w
Quebecu uklad o wolnym handlu w Amerykach (FTAA), ktory otworzy dla USA
rynek zlozony z 800 milionow konsumentow, reprezentujacy 40 proc.
produktu swiatowego brutto - zagraza Unii Europejskiej utrata
dotychczasowej korzystnej pozycji w handlu z Ameryka Lacinska.
Za wydaniem papierowym dziennika "Rzeczpospolita" z dn.
30.04.-01.05.2001 r."
Uklony
kpawlak
--
Antysocjalistyczne Mazowsze http://www.upr.org.pl/mazowsze/
Witryna kary smierci
http://www.upr.org.pl/kara_smierci/kara_smierci.html
ZSRE czyli UE http://ue.upr.org.pl/

Uzytkownik kpawlak w wiadomosci do grup dyskusyjnych
napisal:3AFAC290.143EE...@upr.org.pl...

Witam
No tak caly swiat sie sprzysiagl przeciwko UE. Kraje z nieuczciwie niskimi
podatkami,
teraz znowu jakis wolny handel. Czy ci ludzie nie potrafia uczciwie
konkurowac ?
szczupak

- Ukryj cytowany tekst -- Pokaz cytowany tekst -kpawlak wrote:

Wydaje mi sie, ze dobrze by bylo
zaprosic Johna McGinnis na pare
wykladow w Polsce, poki nie jest
zajety....
Chicago Sun-Times:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/osul24.html
April 24, 2001
BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN
In Quebec City last weekend, President Bush spent the summit
vigorously    demonstrating that he possesses one quality his
presidential father famously         lacked--namely, "the vision thing."
Bush's heroic vision is that of a hemispheric Free Trade Area of the
Americas from     the Arctic to the Antarctic--from sea to frozen sea,
you might say. And it was signed  by the leaders at the Americas Summit
with only one abstention: Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela and a
romantic leftist.
Since the FTAA is not scheduled to start before 2006, however, there's
many a slip that could upset it. Let me briefly list the obstacles:
* The Latin American signatories are unlikely to ratify the treaty
unless they believe that Bush can get the "fast track" negotiating
authority needed to push it through a nervous Congress.
* And that won't be easy. To encourage the Latins to reduce their trade
barriers,      Bush will need to remove protective tariffs and subsidies
from such rock-ribbed        Republican constituencies as farmers,
textile manufacturers and Gov. Jeb Bush's  Florida orange growers.
* Even if he succeeds in that, he still will need Democratic votes to
expand the       North American Free Trade Agreement into FTAA--and the
Dems, under pressure from Big Labor, are drifting toward a kind of
economic isolationism.
* The Democrats may control Congress after the 2002 elections.
* And finally, despite their signatures, not all of the Latin American
leaders really  favor a U.S.-led hemispheric economic bloc like FTAA.
The Brazilians in particular     prefer Mercosur, the Latin American
bloc, in which they are the Big Piranha, and       would prefer a
Mercosur trade deal with the European Union over the FTAA. They might
seize on any congressional hesitation to call the whole thing off.
Suppose, however, that Bush overcomes these obstacles--and wins the 2004
elections. He then would face the awkward fact that there is not one
"vision" of FTAA, but two very different visions.
Bush, the Republican Party, private business and most economists favor
free trade as simple, unqualified and indeed free as possible. The
theory underlying this vision,    adumbrated by the distinguished legal
theorist John McGinnis in both the Chicago       and Harvard law
journals, is that of "jurisdictional competition." Simply put,    
genuinely free trade forces nations that have chosen different systems
of tax, welfare and regulation to compete with each other.
Businesses and taxpayers vote with their feet by moving from one
"jurisdiction" (i.e., country) to another. And under jurisdictional
competition--a kind of international     economic mimicry of U.S.
federalism--the system "wins" that attracts the most          businesses
and high-earners and so creates the most prosperity and jobs.
Generally     speaking, the winners in this marketplace of governments
tend to be low-tax, lightly   regulated economies with workfare rather
than welfare.
The other "vision" disparages jurisdictional competition as "a race to
the bottom." It wants instead to "harmonize" tax, welfare and regulatory
policies across different     jurisdictions so that no one can escape
interventionist and high-tax governments.      This vision would turn
the trade agreement into a cartel of governments and make       "free
trade" a vehicle for extending regulations rather than restraining them.
Not surprisingly, this sort of FTAA is the vision of the Quebec
protesters, labor      unions, social democratic governments (some in
Latin America), left-wing         non-governmental organizations and the
lawyers and bureaucrats who run international bodies such as the
European Union, Mercosur and the World Trade Organization and who would
therefore be harmonizing all our tax rates. It was  expressed very
neatly by a Sierra Club spokesman in Quebec who, apparently forgetting
the usual claim of the protesters that they are defending national
sovereignty against "globalization," said that U.S. companies ought to
be compelled to follow American regulations even when operating in
foreign countries.
Which vision is likely to prevail? Well, as the great Welsh socialist
Aneurin Bevan    used to say: "Why look into the crystal ball when you
can read the book?"
Thirty years ago a continental free-trade organization on the George W.
Bush model     existed in the European Common Market. Conservative
politicians praised it on the      grounds that its jurisdictional
competition "made socialism impossible." Today it has  transmogrified
into the European Union, where bureaucrats regulate everything from    
the size of condoms to the strength of beer, and which is currently
proposing to       crack down on "harmful tax competition" (i.e., low
taxes).
Bush--who reached out to the Quebec protesters with a promise to protect
U.S. labor and environmental standards--may not fully realize the danger
of a similarly gradual transformation of the FTAA into a system of
continental regulation. He could guard against it very effectively by
appointing the alert John McGinnis as his watchdog on trade,
international law and U.S. sovereignty.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/amityshlaes/as20010502.shtml
Amity Shlaes
May 2, 2001
Why tax havens provide shelter for everyone
In two weeks' time, the governments of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development will meet in Paris to review its
campaign to crack down on the world's tax havens. But the future of the
project will be determined before that in Washington, when the
OECD's new mystery member - the Bush administration - settles its
position.
Over the weekend, European finance ministers seized the occasion of a
Group of Seven industrialised countries meeting to rattle
Washington's cage on the tax haven issue.
The energy of these campaigners is not surprising. If the US says "Count
me out", it will remove the teeth from the anti-tax haven campaign.
But the administration's call has a significance that ranges beyond the
Caymans and Vanuatus of this world. It will indicate how the Bush
team is likely to come out on the identity question plaguing governments
of big capitalist nations: is it at heart a tax-maximiser or tax-cutter?
All modern nations are to some degree both; most states cut taxes from
time to time and every state needs some revenue. The choice is one
of emphasis, and which emphasis better serves national welfare.
This particular story started in the late 1990s, when the rich men's
club decided it was time for a tax-maximising push, or, as the document
put it, to "develop measures to counter the distorting effects of
harmful tax competition on investment and financing decisions and the
consequences for national tax bases". The OECD itself does not have
jurisdiction to enforce such measures but its members do. Last June
they got serious and organised the publication of an OECD blacklist of
35 havens to be threatened with national economic sanctions unless
they agreed, by this July, to help the rich men chase revenues.
Two motives are at work here. The first is to slow the alarming rise in
global crime and money laundering. The second, more powerful one
is the tax-maximising motive. High-tax regimes want to suppress havens
to ensure that funds to their own coffers flow unchecked.
This is the wrong agenda. For while tax competition among countries can
be chaotic and give rise to corruption, it also generates enormous
benefits. These benefits accrue first to developing nations. New
identities as financial centres enable even resourceless countries to
build an
economic base. This is a point that deserves to be considered by the
OECD and by all multilateral entities, which make such a show of
concern over growth rates in less developed countries.
The biggest beneficiaries of tax competition are the citizens of
high-tax countries. That's because tax competition from abroad puts
pressure
on their leaders to reduce rates at home. A harmonised world dominated
by a tax-maximising culture would relieve that pressure. It is no
accident that it was a French finance minister who lobbied hardest in
Washington this weekend.
As the Irish government can report after its experience with the
European Union, high-tax nations such as France are always the most
aggressive on such matters. That's because their leaders have the most
to lose if they fail. But it is not in the interests of French citizens
to
restrain tax competition globally. What the French - and inhabitants of
other developed nations - need most is robust growth and one of the
best ways to ensure such growth is to lower domestic tax rates.
The Clinton administration weighed these matters and planted itself in
the anti-competition, revenue-hunting camp. Foreign fiscal policy
reflected domestic fiscal policy: the administration was raising tax
rates at home. A large 1993 tax rise increased the US's relative
vulnerability to Caribbean tax havens.
In contrast, most members of the Bush administration see themselves as
tax-cutters and are seeking to prove it with a programme for
across-the-board rate cuts. The free market hawks who serve President
George W. Bush at the National Economic Council and the
Council of Economic Advisers will not take the lead on the tax haven
issue, for OECD matters fall in the Treasury's bailiwick. But most
have, at one point or other, noted that international tax competition is
good.
After all, America's competitive tax cuts of the 1980s helped ensure
that the US was the global growth engine of the 1990s. In retrospect,
the 1980s tax cuts proved a win-win move globally, provoking a wave of
tax-cutting in countries such as the UK, which then grew apace.
A noteworthy by-product of this tax-cutting focus was tax revenue
maximisation: revenues derived from growth offset budget deficits.
But while Republican administrations tend to be more tax-averse than
Democratic ones, they too share something of the revenue-hound
personality. And the US tax system, which lays claim to the global
income of US taxpayers, reinforces that personality.
So Paul O'Neill, the treasury secretary, has waffled, saying: "We have
no business telling any nation what their tax rates should be. I just
want to be able to collect taxes from US taxpayers." Alas, these goals
may conflict.
The US decision will be important for the tax haven nations as well as
for those who invest or bank there. But it will also affect American
efforts to lower taxes at home. Dan Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation
points out that the ultimate target of an organised and global
anti-competition campaign is likely to be the world's biggest tax haven
- the US itself.
The short-term damage could also be great. As the urgency of the weekend
campaigners revealed, the US has the authority to set the tone
of the world's economic culture. By loudly rejecting the OECD
initiative, it would signal that the global philosophy must be one of
tax-cutting, not tax-maximising.
©2001 FinancialTimes.com

ab wrote:

[cut]
Witam!
...copied, transfered...
Uklony
kpawlak
--
Antysocjalistyczne Mazowsze http://www.upr.org.pl/mazowsze/
Witryna kary smierci
http://www.upr.org.pl/kara_smierci/kara_smierci.html
ZSRE czyli UE http://ue.upr.org.pl/

Serdecznie zapraszam do udzialu w Konferencji -
WARSZAWA I MAZOWSZE W INTERNECIE - Internet w Pracy i Edukacji
22 paxdziernika br. w godzinach 10.00 - 16.00
w Warszawie w PKiN, sala Rudniewa
pod Patronatem Honorowym Marszalka Wojewodztwa Mazowieckiego
Pozdrawiam serdecznie,
Magdalena Laczynska
p...@waw.org.pl
Dzien II - 22 paxdziernika - Praca i Fundusze Strukturalne na Mazowszu
10.00 - Uroczyste rozpoczecie II dnia Konferencji "Praca i Fundusze
Strukturalne" - Zygmunt Gutowski i Ryszard Laczynski, Rada Programu
Edukacyjno-Rozwojowego PEP
10.10 - Wystapienie Wicemarszalka Wojewodztwa Mazowieckiego pana Wojciecha
Wierzejskiego
10.20 - Ogloszenie wynikow Konkursu na strony internetowe miast, gmin i
powiatow Mazowsza
11.00 - przerwa
11.30 - Rola Gminnych Centrow Informacji w procesie aktywizacji zawodowej
osob bezrobotnych - Pawel Sektas, Wojewodzki Urzad Pracy
12.00 - Czy Polskie instytucje i firmy stac na e-learning? Prawda i mity o
systemach o zdalnej edukacji - Instytut Maszyn Matematycznych
12.40 - Telepraca i certyfikaty w Hiszpanii - Joan Pons, Qualiteasy
13.00 - Budowa Regionalnych systemow informacyjnych - Marcin Ozorkiewicz,
ComputerLand
13.30 - przerwa
14.00 - Programy Open Source dla MSP i samorzadow - zapowiedz warsztatow -
Marek Robak
14.20 - Fundusze Strukturalne na Mazowszu - Pawel Wiszniewski, Urzad
Marszalkowski Wojewodztwa Mazowieckiego
14.50 - Powolanie Zespolu Roboczego do opracowania Strategiii rozwoju
spoleczenstwa informacyjnego na Mazowszu - Zygmunt Gutowski, Rada Programu
PEP
15.00 - Wykorzystanie europejskich funduszy strukturalnych dla regionow w
aspekcie spoleczenstwa informacyjnego - Artur Kolasinski, Ministerstwo Nauki
i Informatyzacji
16.30 - zakonczenie
Organizator:
RADA PROGRAMU EDUKACYJNO-ROZWOJOWEGO POLSKA - EUROPA - POLONIA
Fundacja dla Warszawy Instytut Badan i Rozwoju