Whenever the term “economics” is mentioned in discussions and on the television, most people visualize things such as money, banks or even stocks. Although these objects do related to the topic of economics, it is not the complete picture. Essentially, economics is the study of the consumption, production and distribution of resources within a system known as an economy.  Money and banks are factors affecting the price of resources produced, but should not really affect the amount of goods produced and consumed in the long run. The term resource does not only reflect only upon materialistic goods such as gold, oil and copper, but it could also be refers to something known as human capital. Human capital is the idea that the skills in which each worker possesses is considered to be a form of capital/resource. Therefore, it is important to not be mistaken by the term “resources” by only associating it with materialistic goods. After explaining a few basic concepts of what economics is, the main topic of this article is determining the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. Although the two terms sound very similar, the difference between the two is quite large.

                The term microeconomics typically refer to the ideas and concepts that analyze the economy making the assumption that the economy is only restricted within the confines of a nation. A circular flow diagram is a perfect example in depicting some key concepts of microeconomics. In a circular flow diagram, it shows an outer circle and an inner circle. The outer circle is the total  production and consumption of an economy,  which shows how the firms uses the worker’s labour as resources to produce goods and services  The people producing the goods must also be the one’s consuming it. Therefore, there Is a feedback loop. The inner circle is used to show the total expenditures in an economy. The inner circle shows how the money flows in the economy. The firms pay wages for workers and the workers’ pay the firm for their goods. The company takes part of the money as profit and the rest are reinvested back into the company to pay future wages or increase company capacity.

                Supply and demand are the most basic and essential concept mentioned in both micro and macro. The idea of supply and demand always exist within the economy because there will always be sellers and buyers in the market.  Supply is the amount of goods and services that someone is willing to sell at a specific price. Demand is the amount of goods and services that someone is willing to buy at a specific price. The intersection of these two functions is called the equilibrium point. There are many factors that could cause these lines to shift and move up and down the curve.  These factors include natural disasters, availability of a cheaper substitute good and taxes incentives from the government.

                The term macroeconomics refer to the idea of viewing the world as a single economy and examining how each country influence each other through trade. Some of the topics mentioned in macroeconomics are GDP, GNP, inflation rate, exchange rate, supply of money and world prices of goods and services.  GDP (Gross Domestic Product) accounts for all the total goods and services produced in a country. GNP (Gross National Product) accounts for all the total goods and services produced by people with a specific nationality of that country. The difference is that GDP calculates all produced goods in Canada regardless of a person’s nationality. On the other hand, GNP accounts for all the good produced by  a Canadian and not necessarily all the goods which are produced in Canada. It is possible that someone is Canadian and is producing goods in a foreign country (foreign direct investment).

                The exchange rate and inflation rate are both in relation with the supply of money in a system. As more money is printed out, the exchange rate will decrease because the value of each dollar decreases. Since the value of money is diminishing, it will require larger sums of money to buy the same amount of goods and therefore inflation exists.

                Overall, these are only some concepts than a give someone a little taste of microeconomics and macroeconomics and is not a true representation all the topics in this field. The topics I have covered here is only about a chapter or so and therefore should not be used as review material.

One of the myths to why gas prices are so high is a decreased supply of gasoline. This is simply not true. In 2011, we EXPORTED gasoline to other countries. So much gasoline was shipped away that it was our highest export for last year. So why are gas prices still priced high when the demand has decreased? It is the cost we incur purchasing foreign oil.

IT’S SIMPLE NUMBERS

I do not see why President Obama cannot understand why gas prices are so high. A few clicks of my mouse and I was on the US Department of Energy website which broke down the exact percentages of cost which go into the price of a gallon of gas.

It is obvious from this side-by-side comparison between the year 2000 price breakdown and the 2010 price breakdown that taxes and refining costs have decreased while the price of oil has increased 15%. If we are shipping gas out of the country and we cannot control the influences which allow the price of foreign oil to fluctuate, wouldn’t it make since to drill here?

CLOUDED BY ALTERNATIVES

President Obama’s push for a new primary fuel for American drivers, I feel, is hampering the obvious avenues of lowering the cost of gas. Many of the alternatives do not provide enough benefit over gasoline engines to warrant a complete overhaul of the automobile industry. We need to let the automakers explore these technologies and find ways for Americans to support them. There are many companies which are already researching, producing and selling alternative fuel vehicles including compressed natural gas (CNG), liquid natural gas (LNG), hydrogen and electric cars. Forcing Americans to purchase these vehicles because of high gas prices will cause more resistance from them. We will eventually need to switch to other fuel sources for our vehicles, but let’s allow the automakers to show us how they will make our lives better, easier and healthier without sacrificing the things we love about driving.

Sources

Fox 8 News (2011, December 30). Fuel becomes America’s biggest export. Retrieved from http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/story/Fuel-becomes-Americas-biggest-export/JSqGsI2M90CFDUuUNqjBNA.cspx?rss=2085

Gearan, A.(2012, February 27). Obama: No easy answers to lowering pump prices. Seattle pi. Retrieved from http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Obama-No-magic-bullet-to-lower-gas-prices-3360462.php

U.S. Department of Energy (2012). What determines the price of gasoline? Office of Transportation & Air Quality. Retrieved from http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/FAQ.shtml

            Expanding our knowledge becomes very limited without communication. The idea of global dialogue, or keeping in touch with fellow countries, is one of the many benefits of global interdependence. With today’s advanced methods of contact, it’s been made much easier to exchange these ideas that benefit our country. People can come into our country faster with their visionary views on products and inventions, and from these insights we can discover ways to better improve our current items and even fabricate products and ideas of our own. These expansions can occur between any set of countries, but thrive in the industrialized countries such as North America, parts of Europe, China, Japan, and many others. One example of how ideas are shared through foreign investment would be Nestle’s expansion to America during WWI. Prior to the war, chocolate sold decently, but when Europe became involved in the war, sales plummeted and they had to find new ways of making income, or file bankruptcy. They decided to make other products such as baby food, dairy, and still made some chocolate. When food ran scarce during the war, they sold a lot of products due to the shortage. From there, business kept increasing, and with the extra money they bought parts of other companies like Carnation and Maybelline. From there, they took their company even further and moved a branch into the United States by the early 1900’s. Because their expansion became so successful, this inspired many companies to do as they had, and Nestle was able to buy other companies too and experiment with products with their own influence as well as those in the countries they went to. We had an effect on them just as they did on us. This is why global dialogue is important, to expand our knowledge, which is always a good idea.

            Another reason why global interdependence has become so useful to our country is how beneficial it’s become to large corporations. Yes, this may seem like an odd statement at first because really, why would big businesses want other corporations to fight against? Well that’s it right there; our economy calls for competition. Without this little factor in our country, we wouldn’t have the determination to go further than our expectations; we wouldn’t dare do better than we know we can do. Businesses get more competition when another business enters the country because they feel the need to outdo the opposing corporation so they can have a better reputation. Due to the competition, prices get lower and the desire to have those products will rise dramatically. With these better known and less expensive items, the product can be taxed, which further benefits our economy. Still not convinced that this battle between companies doesn’t benefit the country greatly? Well, foreign firms account for more than 18% of total U.S. merchandise exports. That may not seem like a large number, but if one really thought about it, it’s quite a lot of money, over $3 trillion dollars to be exact. And not only that, but those companies that come to America accounted for over 20% of our exports. Having people put businesses in our country really is helpful, and it does help them by getting their corporation name out in the open, but it benefits us financially too, so it’s a win-win for both participants.

            Besides expanding our knowledge and creating competition, what good is foreign investment? Well, as it turns out, when foreign companies move into the U.S. it creates more jobs for Americans. For outside countries to come into America and branch out their businesses can’t just benefit them, so they tend to hire a good majority of Americans workers. As a matter of fact, in 2009, foreign firms like Toyota employed over 5.7 million American workers! If we had more corporations offering that many jobs, our unemployment rate would decline and it would really help in the stimulation of our economy. An estimation by IIUSA states that since 2003, $3.1 billion has been invested to the foreign capital in the U.S. Economy, creating well over 65,000 jobs for American workers, and better yet, didn’t affect U.S. taxpayers at all. With statistics such as these, it’s hard to deny the facts, and even harder to push aside how truly beneficial global interdependence is to our country’s economy.

            Like any good thing, global has its problems, the benefits are great, and its positive effect on the American economy is simply incredible. From having other countries branch their businesses into the United States, we get amazing new ideas for products and learn how to improve the items we already have, and better yet, we keep in touch with our ‘neighbors’ which can essentially maintain peace. Besides brilliant new ideas, it also creates competition for big businesses, and the items involved can be taxed which helps America even more. With lower prices on these products, the demand for those items gets higher which stimulates our economy even further. And when these foreign investors come into our country, we get more jobs in our country for U.S. workers so our unemployment will be much, much lower. It’s obvious to see how big of an advantage global interdependence is, and it really does help America as a whole. Let’s stay open minded about ways for America to get out of the whole once more. Like Roosevelt was saying, we shouldn’t wait for the snake to strike; we should take hold of the situation now and do something good for ourselves while helping other countries too. Foreign investment has helped us so much already, so why stop now?

Be Careful!

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Congratulations!!!!!!From:”MR PETER SAND” <suluo101@yahoo.com.hk> [Add]To: Date:Tue, 29 Nov 2011 7:28 PM (1 week 6 days ago)Show Raw MessageShow full header

body RE: IMMEDIATE PAYMENT REMITTANCE

This is to notify you that your over due entitlement fund has been gazetted to be released in which an indoor meetings were held between my governments, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank Auditors, representatives of the Asian Countries, European Union and American Congress respectively concerning the inheritance.

It generated an interest of US$ 15.5 Million united state dollars, which we are about to pay to you via Special Bank Instrument directly to your account on the instruction from the Government.

Be informed that your name was stipulated under the category "A" awaiting the receipt of his payment therefore; you are advised as a matter of urgency, to reconfirm the following details:

YOUR FULL NAMES
CORRESPONDING ADDRESS
TELEPHONE / FAX NUMBERS
MOBILE PHONE and
AGE

Note that if you have received this message by (electronic email sending error) to your system; kindly help us by informing us to enable us sort this out as my office has been instructed by the Government to take the issues of the release of all payment owed to foreign beneficiaries very serious.

It will interest you to know that as soon as we receive the above details, we will commence with all needed necessary procedures and issue all payments details to you, in other to approve the release of your long over due entitlement fund, I want you to understand that this arrangement supersedes all the previous arrangements given to you.

Nevertheless, if we do not hear from you within the next seven (7) working days from today, it shall attract indefinite postponement of your payment and my government will not be blamed for such action, any question should be directed to this office.

The Government is sorry for any inconvenience the delay in releasing your entitlement fund must have caused you as a result of unprofessional services rendered by the banking and financial institutes and that is our aim of objective.

Congratulations!!!!!!

Truly yours,

MR PETER SAND
 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

GO ahead and postpone your scam!!

Don't Be Fooled!

Image via Wikipedia

Seven GOP candidates for president and lots of opinions on every subject covered was the focus of the debate tonight, October 18, 2011. Held in Las Vegas, Nevada each hopeful fought for their place in the spot light. Each had very good points, but some stood out more than others.

Romney did make a good point on lower unemployment rate in his state while in office. But the mud slinging began when the governor of Texas said his state created more jobs. Romney responded the jobs were filled by illegal’s, which drew fire from the Texas state governor.

Cain made great points on his 9-9-9 plan and told the American people to make their own choice and do the math according to it’s affect on their own family finances. He is right, but the other candidates tried to tear it apart with discussions of petty things.

Each thought they had the best chance of winning the GOP spot against President Obama and he has been called a one term president. Bachmann was poised and great in her answer, but some of them sounded more like one line pep talks then actual solutions to the current problems in the economy.

Each candidate hopeful is fighting it out and we are now tired of hearing the apples and oranges analogy. It is time to make a choice and no matter what each one fights about, the best of the group was Romney and Cain. Both have proven track records as successful businessmen and politicians. They do not rely on political position only as the past work record.

For two hours I listened and was disappointed overall with the debate. There were many good points to pull from it, but the snipping at each other and acting like it was a school yard fight did not do much for any one of them.

In the end, each person will have to do their own research and try to make the best decision possible. But the candidates that put the American people first and stop thinking about how much foreign aid can be sent to other countries is going to be the one to lead us from a depression back to a working country and power.

The U.S. and the CTBT: Strategy, Security, and Relationship

In 1996, the United States was the first country to sign the treaty designed to ban all nuclear weapon testing. But three years later, anti-climactic congressional cries of skepticism and worry later prevented U.S. ratification. Fourteen years after that, a landmark international nuclear agreement is still pending. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is designed to prohibit all nuclear explosions in all environments. Additionally, the treaty established the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), charging it with monitoring nuclear testing around the world and facilitating any country’s request to verify whether another country had tested a weapon.

The 1999 U.S. Senate under President Clinton failed to ratify the CTBT, as the dissenting Senators were concerned about the U.S.’s ability to maintain a nuclear deterrent if the country committed itself to an agreement not to test the weapons it depends upon for deterrence. Though, the U.S. has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992. Adding to the Senators’ concerns were the perceived weaknesses of the treaty’s International Monitoring System (IMS), which provides several means of detecting possible nuclear explosions in a variety of environments. Perhaps, so the complaints went, Russia, China, or North Korea could get away with testing undetected nuclear weapons as parties to the treaty, enabling them to maintain viable deterrence while the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal might deteriorate into obsolescence. Then, perhaps, these fears emanating from the trail dust of the Cold War and the nascent, rather than proven, IMS system were warranted. But fourteen years and two presidents later, this is not the case.

Given the Obama Administration’s prioritized desire to reduce nuclear proliferation and the U.S.’s need for an effective non-proliferation regime, the time is right to ratify the CTBT. There are several reasons for this.

First is the goal of legal consistency. Even before the CTBT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone international document concerning the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Entering into force in 1970, the treaty demands that countries without nuclear weapons not develop or acquire them. Equally important, the treaty, in its famous Article VI, calls on countries with nuclear weapons to make “good faith efforts” in negotiations with each other towards further nuclear disarmament. In large part this means reductions in the sizes of nuclear arsenals, and Obama has already restarted this process with the recent agreement with Russia on a new treaty to replace the recently expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) of 1991, further limiting the sizes of the arsenals of both countries. Lastly, in a provision for non-nuclear countries and progress in energy, under the NPT nuclear states are not to interfere with any states’ right to acquire peaceful nuclear energy.

One cannot argue for the CTBT in isolation, simply chiding those who have not ratified it and expecting massive international pressure to bring universal or national ratification. The CTBT is strongest in relation to the foundation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, the NPT. But the NPT awaits reliable commitment from North Korea and ratification from India, Pakistan, and Israel. For India at least, the treaty’s promised “good faith” efforts of nuclear states negotiating to disarm is a particularly weak constraint on nuclear “haves”, perpetuating the inequality between them and nuclear “have nots.” Naturally then, India has not ratified the CTBT.1 It is not unreasonable to suppose that countries like India who refuse both the NPT and the CTBT, and even those who are parties to the former but not the latter, don’t trust the “good faith efforts” of the U.S. while it refuses to formally commit itself to a nuclear test-ban. To much of the rest of the world, it doesn’t look like we’re doing what we need to be doing in the way of disarmament if we’re effectively saying that we might test a weapon. So, Article VI of the NPT would gain needed force if the additional agreement of a nuclear weapon test-ban were reached and enforced. Ratifying the CTBT would put the U.S. in a position to lobby at the treaty’s Article XIV Entry-Into-Force Conferences for the treaty’s ratification by the remaining eight Annex 2 states, whose ratifications are required for the treaty to enter into force.2 Annex 2 states are those that had nuclear capability or an extensive nuclear research establishment at the time of the CTBT’s creation in 1996, and some others that have not ratified include China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran (who blames the failure of the CTBT to enter into force on the U.S.).3

Among other initiatives, this commitment, along with disarmament agreements with Russia, offer a more complete stance of disarmament to the rest of the world, and would go a long way towards bringing the CTBT into force with the necessary additional ratifications, as well as increase the number of members of the NPT.

Second, the principal concerns of the treaty’s opponents have been that testing nuclear weapons is the only way to maintain an effective deterrent and that the CTBT’s explosion monitoring system (IMS) is not sensitive enough to detect potential explosions of countries that may cheat. Although the first of these concerns may sound intuitive, nuclear stockpile maintenance initiatives like the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) and Life Extension Programs (LEP), have received acclaim from nuclear experts, particularly JASON, for their proven capability to maintain the reliability and safety of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.4 JASON is an independent physics and nuclear research panel that concluded in 2006 that most plutonium pits in the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal “have credible lifetimes of at least 100 years.”5 The plutonium pit is the essential core of a nuclear weapon whose reliability is necessary for the weapon to be effective. The Stockpile Stewardship Program run by the Department of Energy has resulted in now three annual declarations that, because scientific modeling has confirmed the reliability and safety of the U.S. stockpile, no nuclear testing is needed. The Life Extension Programs, under the Stockpile Stewardship program, have also proved to efficiently correct warhead safety issues.

This should allay the concerns of those thinking the U.S. could not maintain an effective nuclear deterrent while committed to the CTBT. But the U.S. might have tested if it was genuinely concerned about its ability to maintain a deterrent, so it would really not be taking a costly step if it formally committed to a test-ban.

On another note, it has been consistently reported by the National Academy of Science (NAS) that the IMS (the CTBT’s explosion detection system) can now detect explosions as small as .01 kilotons (kT) by a remarkable variety of means: seismological (earthquake-like geological events), hydroacoustic (ocean-based sound wave monitoring), infrasound (atmospheric sound waves), and radionuclide (atmospheric radioactive particle detection) stations. This thoroughly equipped detection network should answer the worries of many Senators who voted against ratification in 1999 worrying that Russia and China might conduct undetected tests.6

If, as the scientific history indicates, nuclear weapon testing is meant for developing new weapons, then an enforced test-ban could be an excellent compromise: nuclear states are not creating new weapons (essential background conditions for any committed “good faith” effort) and are not overtly frightening non-nuclear states, while they can remain confident in their current (hopefully shrinking) nuclear deterrents, provided they trust the scientific community’s experts. A committed test-ban would epitomize a good faith effort at disarmament and show states weary of U.S. power, aggression, and ‘high alert’ paranoia that the U.S. takes its disarmament responsibilities seriously.

Lastly, the cessation of new nuclear weapon production that would take place as a result of CTBT ratification, paired with (and possibly derived from) observing the NPT, would contribute to a robust network of consistent, relational commitments necessary for the U.S. to do its part to mitigate one of today’s greatest threats: nuclear attack.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Barack Obama reminded us of the painful reality that we must sometimes meet the brutality of war with the same. As he frankly said, “a non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.”7 Sadly, neither could have persuasively crafted words in treaties. We need only recall the fruits of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. Treaties fail where relationships failed first, so we relate treaties to others in the hopes of making our agreements and messages clear and consistent. Treaties are essential because they represent positive agreement, accountability, and relationship among nations. But in themselves, they do not guarantee peace. Peace requires consistently regular, friendly, productive, and educational relations among nations. This is the same kind of citizen engagement that toppled the Berlin Wall and that might reveal to the conservative American and the conservative Iranian that they are not required to be enemies. Positive engagement is not legal or permanent, but immensely powerful, yet wavering. Preventing nuclear war requires what Andrei Lankov, a professor at Kookmin University in Seoul, argued is needed to open the North Korean regime: international engagement and relationship maintenance.8

Given Obama’s reminder about implacable tyranny and its only remedy, the U.S. would do well to stifle misunderstanding and its tragic progeny with clarity of global communication. Our initiatives to enforce the CTBT must systematically reference and hinge upon the NPT, but ultimately upon the larger relational banner under which each treaty lies. Together the treaties would strengthen each other in a comprehensive relational commitment made by a country striving for both policy consistency and therefore a credible position upon which to lobby for international threat reduction.

1 Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties/npt.html

2 Dunlop, Sean and Du Preez, Jean. The United States and the CTBT: Renewed Hope or Politics

as Usual? James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Monterey Institute for International Studies. February 2009. http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_ctbt_united_states.html., p.8.

3 Statement by the Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the Preparatory Committee of

the NPT 2010 Review Conference, May 8, 2007, www.reachingcriticalwill.org/ legal/ npt/ prepcom07/ statements/ 8mayIran.pdf.

4 Scheinman, Lawrence. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Center for Nonproliferation Studies,

Washington, D.C. Office. Monterey Institute of International Studies. April 2003. http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_9a.html., p.5.

5 “Studies Show Plutonium Degradation in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Will Not Affect Reliability Soon.” National Nuclear Security Administration, 2006.

6 Ibid, p.6.

7 Obama’s Nobel Remarks. New York Times, Dec 10 2009.

8 Lankov, Andrei. “Changing North Korea”. Foreign Affairs, November/December 2009.

In order not to lag behind the times we must learn different foreign languages. We realize it we learn. Both teachers and learners are interested in more effective and enjoyable language learning. Teachers-trainers are full of ideas on how to make foreign language lessons more active. What we need nowadays is a range of languages on offer for children to choose from. In school we have to make facilities available for teaching a wider range of modern languages. And it’s not enough just to learn the language. One has to learn the culture underlying the language because language is a manifestation of the culture.

English is a world language. It is the language of progressive science and technology, trade and cultural relations, commerce and business. It’s the universal language of international aviation, shipping and sports. It is also the major language of diplomacy.

I want to know foreign languages because I have always been interested in foreign countries, their customs and peoples. I want to master English because to know a foreign language is absolutely necessary for every modern specialist. Everything depends on our own efforts. And I understand it and therefore do all my best to learn English.

Image via Wikipedia

Many issues can arise when conducting transactions with foreign countries that do not share like laws and policies. Due to the array of foreign laws and regulations pertaining to the settlement of disputes, this paper will examine two countries; Brazil & Thailand.  For each of the two selected countries this article will discuss four points, which are mentioned below as well as each contrast from one another and what would be the best course of action when dealing with any of the two nations.  The topics discussed will be presented in an Q&A format, where each answer will separated by the spotlighted countries.

What are the benefits of utilizing the negotiation process first?

·         Brazil

o   In the recent past Brazilian business according to their negotiation, process was handled in a higher context format compared to low-context countries such as the United States.  Whereas business proposals and negotiations had to have a personal element attached to it as well as very little importance was placed on written contracts.  Recently, Brazilian law has been taking steps as to embrace administrative lengths in the negotiating process.  With globalization taking over the market place, commercial businesses are constantly approaching complex obstacles from transactions and many other factors, where the fault of which party it to blame or be responsible for the issues has been very hazy, leading to long, drawn out and costly ramifications for all involved with the transaction (Korb, Gadwood, & Gross, 2011).

·         Thailand

o   As for Thai Law, the negotiation process is still handled in a high-context fashion, where contracts are not based on specifics of a transaction, nor do they serve as a definite set of conditions when negotiating a contract.  Furthermore, Thailand did ratify the United Nations Convention of 1958 and is a member of the New York Convention, but has also taken part in the Arbitration Act of 1987.  Thailand’s conditions in said act states that decisions of foreign courts are not enforceable or even accepted in Thai courts (Thailand: Business Indicator Summary, 2009).

·         Overall

o   The negotiation process must be handled with care in any scenario at best. In order to properly safe guard the transactions in both foreign parties especially on a commercial scale is to have the contracts negotiated around foreign law or notarized and created in the foreign court.  In addition, research the extension of foreign courts, for example when the merchandise is over international seas would the foreign court have jurisdiction or does it end at the border?  As these small details may not be looked at as important in most foreign courts the range of jurisdiction should be known to the parties involved in the foreign transaction as where one contract and courts stops at what exact point the other takes over. 

o   Below is a simple guideline of an effective negotiation process:

1.      Set realistic goals prior to communicating with your business counterpart.

2.      Completely avoid overly aggressive behavior, it is always best to save face as by doing the opposite in many cultures is seen as losing control.  Another fact is instead of promoting communication, this behavior impedes two parties from working together to find a common ground.

3.      Hear the conditions of the other party, they will let you know exactly what they want and what they can offer as well as allows them the sense of accomplishment.  Keeping in mind that this part of the process will reveal clues on how the two parties involved can reach a solution.

4.      Parties must show respect towards each position, laws they stand behind, and business.  It is very important to encourage open dialogue and reach a comfort zone for all involved.

5.      Prove to the party that your hands are tied, meaning if one party cannot completely meet the demands of the other, they should exert their efforts in proving why.  This will eventually lead the party having no options but to find an alternative solution.

6.                   Invest time and money in this particular process, leaving the most difficult issues for last.  This process takes time as well as effort and if an agreement is met before court entrance, a new and bonded relationship could unfold.  More importantly, public image, outrageous costs and other factors can be prevented from two parties meeting a compromise (Chen & Fotiadis, 2009).

How much power and authority could the World Trade Organization enact during this process?

·         As both parties have been members with the WTO since January 1, 2005 they both also have their own documented list of exemptions. With this being said, the WTO has very limited enforcement policies as far as to those who do not want to participate in resolving issues.  For the most part the WTO is a set of negotiating and dispute settling guidelines where arguments can take years to arrive at a solution (WTO, 2011).

What are the implications of choosing private law to seek ratification?

·         The implications of choosing private law to seek ratification are that the case will be looked at in the main perspective of the governing court.  Meaning depending on the conditions and format of the negotiation process, judgments are solely based on one perspective.  Whereas it is in the preparedness of the foreign counterpart to accept foreign law and use it to their advantage, rather than to deal in international court.

What are the ratifications of choosing the governing law?

·         The ratifications or approval of choosing governing law is solely based on the transaction taking place and the laws that can aid a party in achieving their goals.  Depending on the legal structure, red tape and other factors contained in the governing law it can be said that almost any law can be used to one’s advantage, but only if that party has knowledge of its existence and how it works.

References

Chen, E., & Fotiadis, J. (2009, June 19). How to successfully settle a dispute. Retrieved July 25, 2011, from Tilleke & Gibbons International Web site: http://www.tillekeandgibbins.com/sites/default/files/jun19_successfully_negotiate.pdf

Korb, D., Gadwood, J., & Gross, J. (2011, February). Brazilian Legislation Proposes to Allow Adminitrative Settlement Disputes. Retrieved July 25, 2011, from Sullcrom.com Web site: http://www.sullcrom.com/files/Publication/ac6bddcd-4490-4629-94dc-47baf8600300/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5c9db260-6b56-4f6d-985b-4c3316b94d07/Korb_Gadwood_Gross_LALBR_Feb_2011.pdf

Thailand: Business Indicator Summary. (2009, June). Retrieved July 25, 2011, from EStandardsForum Web site: http://www.estandardsforum.org/thailand/business-indicators?id=162

WTO. (2011). UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: BASICS. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from World Trade Organization Web site: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact1_e.htm

Venice declined in power due to poor leadership. Its government was corrupt as it sold government positions to the highest bidder so as to gain funds to hire mercenaries. It also had a declining pool of nobility due to the plague. This resulted in fewer capable nobles in the government and they are unable to make the best decisions for the country. Hence this led to the decline of venice because it became unreliable due to the fact that any person could be part of the government as long as they have the money. This resulted in fewer capable leaders int he government, causing fewer good choices that will help improve Venice. The government loss the support of the people and are unwilling to work hard  to bring economic growth to the country. Hence the poor leadership caused the decline of Venice.

Foreign threats also caused the decline of Venice. Venice had to switch alliances with rival countries to protect its own interests and territories, resulting in poor relations that would lead to war if negotiations fail. They also had to deal with the Ottoman empire which was competing with Venice for trade influence in the Adriatic Sea. Venice had to use resources to fight wars and hence this led to the Decline of Venice because it had to spend a lot of money to hire mercenaries to fight for them, and placed trus on them although money could not buy their loyalty. The spending of funds for the army also made the people think that the government did not care for their welfare, resulting in them not contributing to the economic growth through trade. Hence the Foreign threats also caused the decline of Venice. 

Maritime competition also caused the decline of venice. There were new trade routes and products being discovered by countries other than Venice, such as calicut which had lucrative trade of spices in India. This caused the destruction of Venice’s monopoly of spice and caused thei trade to reduce. The Dutch and British also invented ships that were better and more advanced than the galleys, which cause the traders to trade with them instead of Venice due to more reliable and convenient trade. Hence maritime competition caused the decline of Venice because it was unable to keep up with the rest of the countries in terms of discoveries of new products and trading routes, resutling in the loss of revenue and eventually the decline of Venice.

 Steps  

1. Use body language. Index, gestures and mimics the world will help you understand what you mean.
2. Take with you a notebook that you can draw figures and some landmarks.
3. When you do not understand how much a certain thing, give that person a pencil and paper, most will understand and write the number.
4. Go to stores and look for pictures of food, accommodation, transportation and entertainment, they are very useful in hotel and restaurant.
5. Remember that many words are recognized internationally: taxi, sexy, coca cola, ok.
6. Let the pictures to explain what you mean. Take pictures of your home, your family or whatever is important to you, things that you want to show everyone you meet.

 Tips  

• If you have with you a little book or a dictionary with words, you can search for words when you do not have any idea.

 Warning  

• All this advice implies that you have a partner who is willing to make the effort to understand what you want to communicate. If the person who “talk” is not interested, you may need to find someone else.
• • More articles like this, How To and Tips articles written with a lot of professionalism you can find them by clicking here.