wydarzenia na świecie (poza polską oraz ukrainą)

[RappaR]

Godzinę temu, memento1984 napisał(a):

Artykul napisany ~1rok temu, 

I dlatego nieprawdziwy? 

[memento1984]

Godzinę temu, RappaR napisał(a):

I dlatego nieprawdziwy? 

Odwrotnie, nie pisany pod wydarzenie.

[memento1984]

Ciekawe fakty sa takie, ze trump jak objal urzad w 2016, jedno z pierwszych rozporzadzen to byla likwidacja “kwestionariusza biograficznego” przy procesie zateudniania na kontrolera + preferencja do zateudniania osob z juz istniejacym zatrudnieniem. Skarzacy nie contestowal nowego prawa z 2016 jako duskryminujace (za orzeczeniem sadu w 1instancji w arizonie,2016).

 

[wiLQ]

Czy ktos moze mi wyjasnic sens nakladania przez Trumpa cla na swoich najwiekszych partnerow handlowych?
Zwlaszcza, ze w najbardziej przewidywalny mozliwy sposob sie nimi potem odwdzieczyli?

Wychodzi mi na to, ze Trump krytykuje deal ktory sam wynegocjowal w 2018... i ktos tam nie rozumie jak dzialaja cla.

Edytowane 3 Lutego przez wiLQ

[RappaR]

[the_secret]

8 godzin temu, wiLQ napisał(a):

Czy ktos moze mi wyjasnic sens nakladania przez Trumpa cla na swoich najwiekszych partnerow handlowych?
Zwlaszcza, ze w najbardziej przewidywalny mozliwy sposob sie nimi potem odwdzieczyli?

Wychodzi mi na to, ze Trump krytykuje deal ktory sam wynegocjowal w 2018... i ktos tam nie rozumie jak dzialaja cla.

Masz

 

Edytowane 3 Lutego przez the_secret

[memento1984]

 

https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/kanada-odpowiada-donaldowi-trumpowi-te-ruchy-na-pewno-zabola-usa/ly9695d

 

vs

 

https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/wine-beer-and-spirits

Edytowane 3 Lutego przez memento1984

[wiLQ]

13 godzin temu, the_secret napisał(a):

Masz

Co mam? Potwierdzenie, ze ten teatrzyk bedzie sie odbywal co miesiac ze szkoda dla prawie wszystkich?
Dowod, ze gosciu nie rozumie relacji miedzynarodowych???

W tym temacie to znalazlem duzo lepsze wyjasnienie sprawy [od Davida Honiga, profesora od negocjacji]:
"Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”"

 

 

[fluber]

https://www.tysol.pl/a135109-administracja-trumpa-zwija-usaid-i-nakazuje-powrot-do-usa-pracownikom-agencji-na-calym-swiecie

W takich chwilach tęsknię za @darkonza

[memento1984]

4 godziny temu, fluber napisał(a):

https://www.tysol.pl/a135109-administracja-trumpa-zwija-usaid-i-nakazuje-powrot-do-usa-pracownikom-agencji-na-calym-swiecie

W takich chwilach tęsknię za @darkonza

Zabawnie sie to czyta z tym ctrl+c ctrl+v powyzej.

[memento1984]

RR:"yyyyy smth smth im an afghan women, Afghanistan plans mumbo-jambo"

.....

DJT:"Good luck, live in peace!"

 

W dniu 4.02.2025 o 03:48, wiLQ napisał(a):

Co mam? Potwierdzenie, ze ten teatrzyk bedzie sie odbywal co miesiac ze szkoda dla prawie wszystkich?
Dowod, ze gosciu nie rozumie relacji miedzynarodowych???

W tym temacie to znalazlem duzo lepsze wyjasnienie sprawy [od Davida Honiga, profesora od negocjacji]:
"Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”"

 

 

• $1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities”
• $70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland
• $2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam
• $47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia
• $32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru
• $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala
• $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt
• Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a non-profit linked to designated terrorist organizations — even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation
• Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab
• “Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria”
• Funding to print “personalized” contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries
• Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund “irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan,” benefiting the Taliban

za: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/at-usaid-waste-and-abuse-runs-deep/

+ fluberowe foliarskie zrodlo:

"Administracja Donalda Trumpa zdecydowała się czasowo wstrzymać zagraniczną pomoc dla fundacji i NGO-sów. W Polsce dotknęło to m.in. Helsińską Fundację Praw Człowieka, Stowarzyszenie 61, Fundację "To Proste", Kampanię Przeciw Homofobii czy organizatorów Tour de Konstytucja. Wszystkie te podmioty przyznają, że bez amerykańskich pieniędzy grozi im poważne osłabienie finansowe."

 

VS

 

W dniu 4.02.2025 o 03:48, wiLQ napisał(a):

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy

 

Edytowane 7 Lutego przez memento1984

[RappaR]

[Pablo81]

Uważam, że Trump ma świetny pomysł z Riwierą Wschodu  przekazaną USA przez Izrael. Bardzo dobra idea.

[mayor]

15 minut temu, Pablo81 napisał(a):

Uważam, że Trump ma świetny pomysł z Riwierą Wschodu  przekazaną USA przez Izrael. Bardzo dobra idea.

Bardzo dobry plan. Była Trump-Plaza w Atlantic City, teraz będzie Trump-Gaza , tematyczny resort z hotelami, kasynami i polami golfowymi, jak wszystko wyburzy będzie piękny widok na morze, hotele z pamiątkami po wybitych palestyńskich dzieciach ,kasyna z grą w rosyjską ruletkę jak z filmu Deer Hunter, pola golfowe z niespodzianką- w każdym dołku niewypał albo niewybuch. Żeby mu tylko nikt nie powiedział, że w Polsce jest takie miejsce jak Hell 

[ignazz]

35 minut temu, Pablo81 napisał(a):

Uważam, że Trump ma świetny pomysł z Riwierą Wschodu  przekazaną USA przez Izrael. Bardzo dobra idea.

Mam nadzieję że to ironia. Bo to poziom zrobienia wesołego miasteczka w Gdańsku w 1939 np przez Rumunię  

[Pablo81]

1 minutę temu, ignazz napisał(a):

Mam nadzieję że to ironia. Bo to poziom zrobienia wesołego miasteczka w Gdańsku w 1939 np przez Rumunię  

Pomysł równie świetny jak ten pod hasłem "Kanada kolejnym stanem USA". 

[ignazz]

Jedno trzeba mu przyznać. Umi w media. Wie że obecnie ludzie przyswoić mogą treści max 30 sekundowe bo mamy pokolenie tik toka więc praktycznie wszystko co robi można skracać do 30 sekundowego klipu. Czy to zmiana nazwy zatoki ze śmiechem pani Clinton w tle, czy podpisaniu wyjścia z WHO gdzie wszystko ma doskonale wyreżyserowane a każdy element czy gest dopracowany jak trójkąty w 3 peat Jordana. Bardzo wyrazisty w kwestiach mało istotnych czasem wręcz do bólu uparty i zafiksowany.  

[lorak]

tylko strefa gazy to nie jest kwestia mało istotna, a plan Trumpa na serio. na szczęście nawet w jego własnej partii większość tego nie popiera, więc raczej nie wejdzie w życie. jednak za sam pomysł (zajęcie przez USA+czystka etniczna palestyńczyków) powinien stracić poparcie każdego racjonalnie myślącego człowieka.

[memento1984]

@fluber

holy shit, hehe (nie fakty nt overhead bo to znalem, ale sie wzial). W koncu bedzie priorytet robic “prywatne” projekty!

https://x.com/nih/status/1888004759396958263?s=46&t=DjvuKNsdKszGDAc0jqBx2A

[fluber]

15 minut temu, memento1984 napisał(a):

@fluber

holy shit, hehe (nie fakty nt overhead bo to znalem, ale sie wzial). W koncu bedzie priorytet robic “prywatne” projekty!

https://x.com/nih/status/1888004759396958263?s=46&t=DjvuKNsdKszGDAc0jqBx2A

Ja nie robiłem projektu w PL, który miał więcej niż 25 procent. Zwykle jest mniej. Zwłaszcza, że czasami koszty pośrednie wrzucasz we wkład własny 

Z tym, że w Polsce koszty pośrednie to jest masa innych rzeczy poza zarządzaniem

Edytowane 9 Lutego przez fluber