Cool

НVБ-ээс “Бусад улс оронд хvнс хvрэлцэхгvй байгаа талаар та хувийн бодлоо чин vнэнээр хэлж тусална уу” гэсэн санал асуулга явуулаад бvтэлгvйтжээ. Учир нь: -африкчууд “хvнс” гэж юv байдгийг, -дорнод европчууд “чин vнэн” гэж юv болохыг, -баруун европчууд “хvрэлцэхгvй байна” гэж юv гэсэн vг болохыг, -хятадууд “хувийн бодол” гэж юv байдгийг, -ємнєд америкчууд “тусална уу” гэж яадгийг, -америкчууд “бусад орон” гэж юу байдгийг тус тус ойлгоогvй гэнэ

Төлбөрийн тэнцлийн талаар танилцуулга байна

http://www.slideshare.net/Gelegjamts/forex-1378869

Unen ug

Өнөө цагт бид улам том байшинтай хэрнээ жижиг гэр бүлтэй, илүү тав тухтай боловч амрах цаг зав багатай, олон эрдмийн зэрэг цолтой ч наад захын мэдлэггүй, өргөн мэдлэгтэй боловч өчүүхэн бодолтой, олон эхнэрүүдтэй боловч олон асуудалтай, илүү анагаах ухаанжиж байгаа ч их өвчин зовлонтой болжээ. Бид аливаад хөнгөн хуумгай хандаж, бага инээж, хурдтай давхиж, түргэн уурлаж, оройтож унтаж, өглөө босохдоо ядарсан сэрж, бага уншиж, зурагт их үзэх юм даа

Funny Marketing

What is Marketing


You see a gorgeous girl at a party.

You go up to her and say, "I am very rich. Marry me!"

That's

Direct Marketing

You're at a party with a bunch of friends and see a gorgeous girl.

One of your friends goes up to her and pointing at you says,

"He's very rich. Marry him."

That's

Advertising.

You see a gorgeous girl at a party.

You go up to her and get her telephone number.

The next day you call and say, "Hi, I'm very rich. Marry me."

That's

Telemarketing.

You're at a party and see a gorgeous girl.

You get up and straighten your tie; you walk up to her and pour her a drink.

You open the door for her, pick up her bag after she drops it,

offer her a ride, and then say, "By the way, I'm very rich "Will you marry me?"

That's

Public Relations

You're at a party and see a gorgeous girl.

She walks up to you and says, "You are very rich, I want to marry you."

That's

Brand Recognition.

You see a gorgeous girl at a party.

You go up to her and say, "I'm rich. Marry me"

She gives you a nice hard slap on your face.

That's  Customer Feedback

Сонирхолтой бичлэг

Давным-давно жил великий шах. Он приказал построить прекрасный дворец. Там было много чудесного. Среди прочих диковин во дворце была зала, где все стены, потолок, двери даже пол были зеркальными. Зеркала были необыкновенно ясные, и посетитель даже не сразу понимал, что перед ним зеркало, - настолько точно они отражали предметы. Кроме того, стены этой залы были устроены так, чтобы создавать эхо. Спросишь: «Кто ты?» - и услышишь со всех сторон: «Кто ты? Кто ты? Кто ты?» Однажды в эту залу забежала собака и в изумлении застыла посередине – целая свора собак окружила её со всех сторон, сверху и снизу. Собака на всякий случай оскалила зубы, и все отражения ответили ей тем же самым. Перепугавшись не на шутку, собака отчаянно залаяла. Эхо повторило её лай. Собака лаяла всё громче. Эхо не отставало. Собака металась туда и сюда, щёлкая зубами. Наутро слуги нашли несчастную собаку бездыханной – в окружении миллионов отражений издохших собак. В зале не было никого, кто мог бы причинить ей хоть какой-то вред. Собака погибла, сражаясь со своими собственными отражениями.


Мир не приносит ни добра, ни зла сам по себе. Он безразличен к человеку. Всё происходящее вокруг нас – всего лишь отражение наших собственных мыслей, чувств, желаний, поступков. Мир – это большое зеркало

International Political Economy from Wikipedia accessed Oct 1 2009

International political economy

International political economy is an academic discipline within the social sciences that analyzes international relations in combination with political economy. As an interdisciplinary field it draws on many distinct academic schools, most notably political science and economics, but also sociology, history, and cultural studies. The academic boundaries of IPE are flexible, and along with acceptable epistemologies are the subject of robust debate. This debate is essentially framed by the discipline's status as a new and interdisciplinary field of study.

Despite such disagreements, most scholars can concur that IPE is ultimately concerned with the ways in which political forces (states, institutions, individual actors, etc.) shape the systems through which economic interactions are expressed, and conversely the effects that economic interactions (including the power of collective markets and individuals acting both within and outside them) have upon political structures and outcomes.

IPE scholars are at the center of the debate and research surrounding globalization, both in the popular and academic spheres. Other topics that command substantial attention among IPE scholars are international trade (with particular attention to the politics surrounding trade deals, but also significant work examining the results of trade deals), development, the relationship between democracy and markets, international finance, global markets, multi-state cooperation in solving trans-border economic problems, and the structural balance of power between and among states and institutions. Unlike conventional international relations, power is understood to be both economic and political, which are interrelated in a complex manner.

Origin

IPE emerged as a heterodox approach to international studies during the 1970s as the 1973 world oil crisis and the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system alerted academics, particularly in the U.S., of the importance, contingency, and weakness of the economic foundations of the world order. IPE scholars (ie. Eugene Low) asserted that earlier studies of international relations had placed excessive emphasis on law, politics, and diplomatic history. Similarly, neoclassical economics was accused of abstraction and being ahistorical. Drawing heavily on historical sociology and economic history, IPE proposed a fusion of economic and political analysis. In this sense, both Marxist and liberal IPE scholars protested against the reliance of Western social science on the territorial state as a unit of analysis, and stressed the international system.

Traditional approaches to IPE

Academic courses, journals and text books typically cover the various view points from which policy recommendations originate, and will endeavour to provide an ideologically neutral presentation of the field of study. Following a precedent set by one of the founding text books of the discipline [1] , individuals and organisations engaged in promoting particular policies, as well as many scholars active in this field, are commonly grouped into one of three worlds views, all of which have existed long before IPE emerged as a distinct academic discipline. These Categories are Liberal , Realist and Marxist. The Liberal category is relatively unified, the last two categories capture a vast range of outlooks . Widely shared views are only found at the highest level of abstraction:

The 'Liberal' view believes in freedom for private powers at the expense of public power (government). Markets, free from the distortions caused by government controls and regulation, will naturally harmonise demand and supply of scarce resources resulting in the best possible world for populations at large.

The 'Realist' view (formerly commonly labelled "Nationalist" ) accepts the power of free markets to deliver favourable outcomes, but holds that optimum conditions are generally obtained with moderately strong public power exerting some regulatory control.

The 'Marxist' view believes that only robust application of strong public power can check innate tendencies for private power to benefit elites at the expense of populations at large.

The 'Constructivist' view assumes that the domain of international economic interactions is not value-free, and that economic and political identities, in addition to material interests, are significant determinants of economic action.

The liberal approach

In economic terms, Liberalism is an approach associated with classical economics, neoclassical economics, Austrian School economics and Chicago school economics.

Favoured policies Minimal or zero government control and regulation of trade. Calls for the privatisation of any organisations producing exportable goods.

History The Liberal approach is often traced to the work of Adam Smith - economics as we know it has been viewed as dawning with the Smithian revolution against Mercantalism. [2] Smith promoted the benefits of competition and division of labour in ensuring that scarce resources are turned into valuable goods and services in the most efficient way possible. He famously mentioned the invisible hand, a symbol for how the mechanisms of free markets turns selfish behaviour by various individual actors into the best possible outcome for society at large. The next major contribution to liberal theory was made by Ricardo, whose theory of comparative advantage suggested that trade between different nations could benefit both parties even in circumstances where one would intuitively feel that one nation would benefit from trade at the others expense. The liberal view point has generally been strong in Western accademia since it was first articulated by Smith in the 18th century. Only during the 1940s to early '70s did an alternative system, Keynesianism, command wide support in universaties. Keynes was chiefly concerned with domestic macroeconomic policy, however in IPE terms his mature views fall squarely into the Realist camp, in that Keynes called for a middle way between public and private power and favoured a managed system of global finance which he helped architect at Bretton Woods. The Keynesian consensus was successfully challenged with attacks launched by Friedrich Hayek's Austrian School and Milton Friedmans Chicago School as early as the 50s, which by the seventies had succeeded in displacing Keynes as the dominant influence. Keynes's approach to international relations, including his thinking on the economic causes of war and economic means of promoting peace, has received further attention with the onset of the global financial crisis and recession since 2008, especially through the work of Donald Markwell. [3][2]

In policy making terms Western governments have generally pursued mixed agendas drawing on both the liberal and realist view point. This has been the case from the dawning of modern commerce to the present day, although there have been periods where one or the other school had gained temporary accendency. The period leading up to 1914 is sometimes described as a golden age of classical enconomics, but in practice governments continued to be partially influenced by mercantialist ideology, and following WW1 economic freedom was constricted. After WWII the Bretton Woods system was established, essentially a realist construct that allowed governments to manage international finance, while still allowing considerable freedom of action for private commerce. In 1971 President Nixon began the rolling back of the Bretton Woods system and until 2008 the trend has been for increasingly liberalization of international trade and finance. Domestically the Atlantic nations since the 70s and large Asian states like China and India since the 90s have also largely pursued a mixture of realist and liberal policies. The only close to wholesale implementations of the liberal viewpoint being carried out by smaller developing nations, often with some degree of coercion by actors such as the US treasury or IMF who have been able to apply financial pressure when the developing nations faced various crises.[4] During 2008, liberal influences began to wane in the wake of the 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence which the Financial Times described as a "a stunning reversal of the orthodoxy of the past several decades" [5]. From later 2008 world leaders have also been increasing calling for a New Bretton Woods System[6] .

The realist view

Within IPE the Realist approach was until recently most commonly labeled nationalism. Historically the earliest distinct school of thought in this category was mercantilism. Other contemporary names for realist approaches are statism and developmentalism..

Favoured policies Historically aggressive trade tariffs were employed to advantage domestic industry at the expense of competitors based in foreign nations. Colonial powers also encouraged trade with their own colonies. Contemporary advocates tend to favour the use of tariffs to protect infant industries in developing nations and sometimes specific sectors (e.g. agriculture) in developed ones. Some advocates within this approach come fairly close to the Liberal point of view, and stipulate conditions where all market controls should be dropped once certain development thresholds are exceeded (this is true even as far back as the late 19th / early 20th century, in the work of influential scholars such as Friedrich List and Alexander Hamilton.)

History The mercantilist view largely characterised policies pursued by state actors from the emergence of the modern economy in the fifteenth century up to the mid twentieth century. Sovereign states would compete with each other to accumulate bullion either by achieving trade surpluses or by conquest. This wealth could then be used to finance investment in infrastructure and to enhance military capability.

The contemporary realist view generally agree with liberals in viewing international trade as a win / win phenomena where firms should be allowed to collaborate or compete depending on market forces. The chief point of contention with liberals is that realists assert national interests can be best served by protecting new industries from foreign competition with high tarrifs until they’ve built up the capability to compete on the world market. One of the earliest formal expressions of this view was found in Alexander Hamilton’s ‘Report on Manufacturers’ which he wrote for the US Government in 1791.

After WWII a notable success story for the developmentalist approach was found in South America where high level of growth and equity were achieved partly as a result of policies originating from Raul Prebisch and economists he trained who were assigned to governments around the continent. After the liberal view re-established its ascendancy in the seventies it has been asserted that high levels of growth resulted from generally favorable international conditions rather than the Realist policies.

A contemporary statement of the Realist view is strategic trade theory, and there has been much debate as to whether the policies it suggests could be effective in solving some of the issues with globalization, such as persistent north / south inequality divide.

The Marxist view

This category has been used to group together an array of different approaches which sometimes have very little in common with Marx’s focus on class, but which all believe in a strong role for public power. Labels for approaches within this category include: feminist, radical, structuralist, critical, underdevelopment and 'world systems'. Broadly the Marxist approach is associated with Heterodox economics.

Favoured policies Generally favour strong protection from market forces by means of high tarrifs and other controls. At the extreme a preference for centrally directed trade with ideologically similar trading partners – that is the command economy as opposed to markets.

History Marx’s Das Kapital was published in 1867 and an economic system based on his ideas was implemented after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Since the collapse of the Soviet union and the COMECON trading bloc in 1991 no major group of trading partners or even single large economy has been run along Marxist lines. Problems with a Marxist command economy are seen as including the very high informational demands required for the efficient allocation of resources and corruptive tendencies of the very high degree of public power need to govern the process. Few academics currently promote classical Marxist views, especially in America, there are a few exceptions in Europe. More popular perspectives include feminist, environmental and radical – developmentalist. The social – constructivist view is an unusual school of thought sometimes grouped into this category. Rather than focus on the tradition factors effecting trade such as distribution of resources, technology & infrastructure, it emphasises the role of dialogue and debate in determining future developments in international trade and globalization.

Criticisms of the traditional divide into the Liberal, Nationalist and Marxist views.

Critics [7] have asserted there is now too much variation in the different view points grouped into each category, especially those under the Nationalist and Marxist headings. Also the names can be considered misleading for the general public. The labels nationalist and Marxist have negative connotations, with many of the perspectives grouped under the Marxist label actually have very little to do with the classical Marxist position. Many advocates within the nationalist tradition being themselves strongly opposed to nationalism in the commonly understood fascist or racist sense and some professors have replaced the label "Nationalist" with "Realist" in their most recent books and courses [8].

The constructivist view

Constructivism is an emerging field in international political economy, and not many works have been done in this area. In general, the constructivist view propounds that material interests, which is central to liberal, realist, and Marxist views, are not sufficient to explain patterns of economic interactions or policies, and that economic and political identities are significant determinants of economic action. Jalal Alamgir's works[9] are examples of constructivist applications in political economy. In his book India's Open-Economy Policy, Alamgir argues that India's economic reforms since 1991 have been fueled in strong part by policymakers' interpretation of India's own identity vis-a-vis the identity of its rivals, such as China.

Notable IPE scholars

• David N. Balaam
• Jonathan Bateman
• Robert Bates
• Jeffrey Warren Bennett
• Jagdish Bhagwati
• Mark Blyth
• Robert Brenner
• Benjamin Cohen
• Theodore Cohn
• Robert W. Cox
• Barry Eichengreen
• Peter B. Evans
• Jeffry Frieden
• Francis Fukuyama
• Geoffrey Garrett
• Gary Gereffi
• Stephen Gill
• Peter M. Haas
• Robert Gilpin
• Peter A. Hall
• Jeffrey A. Hart
• Eric Helleiner
• John Ikenberry
• Peter J. Katzenstein
• Stephen D. Krasner
• David A. Lake
• Donald Markwell
• Renee Marlin-Bennett
• Matthias Matthijs
• Helen Milner
• Theodore H. Moran
• Andrew Moravcsik
• Dale D. Murphy
• Jonathan Nitzan
• Thomas Oatley
• Kenneth A. Oye
• Ronen Palan
• Louis Pauly
• Ralph Pettman
• Aseem Prakash
• Robert Putnam and his two-level game theory
• John Ravenhill
• Ronald Rogowski
• John Ruggie
• Leonard Seabrooke
• Robert Shiller
• Beth Simmons
• Timothy J. Sinclair
• Joan Edelman Spero
• David Spiro
• Susan Strange
• Kees Van Der Pijl
• Teivo Teivainen
• Michael Veseth
• Immanuel Wallerstein
• Matthew Watson
• Catherine Weaver
• Ellen Meiksins Wood
• Ngaire Woods

Notes and references

1. ^ Gilpins, Robert (1987) The Political Economy of International Relations

2. ^ editor John Woods , author Prof. Harry Johson , "Milton Friedman: Critical Assessments", vol 2, page 73 , Routledge , 1970.

3. ^ Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2006. Donald Markwell, Keynes and International Economic and Political Relations, Trinity Paper 33, Trinity College, University of Melbourne, 2009. [1]

4. ^ Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, Metropolitan Books, New York, NY 2007.

5. ^ Chris Giles in London, Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt and, Krishna Guha in Washington. "The undeniable shift to Keynes". The Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4cf37f4-d611-11dd-a9cc-000077b07658.html. Retrieved 2008-01-23.

6. ^ "European call for 'Bretton Woods II'". Financial Times. 2008-10-16. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7cc16b54-9b19-11dd-a653-000077b07658.html. Retrieved 2009-03-17.

7. ^ for example John Ravenhill, in chapter 1 of his 2005 book 'Global Political Economy'

8. ^ E.g. compare John Ravenhill's, 2005 edition of 'Global Political Economy' with the edition published in December 2007.

9. ^ E.g. Jalal Alamgir, India's Open-Economy Policy: Globalism, Rivalry, Continuity (London: Routledge, 2008).

Further reading

Cohen, Benjamin (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.

Gill, Stephen (1988). Global Political Economy: perspectives, problems and policies. New York: Harvester. ISBN 074500265X.

Gilpin, Robert (2001). Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-08677-X.

Ravenhill, John (2005). Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199265844.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_political_economy"

Gogo.mn дээр Зөгийн балны тухай ийм сонирхолтой мэдээ тавигдсан байна

Зөгийн балны дэлхийн зах зээл бол хүнсний хамгийн чухал зах зээл. Дэлхийд 1.4 сая тонн зөгийн бал үйлдвэрлэдгээс 400 мянган тонн нь экспортонд явдаг мэдээтэй.




Хөгжилтэй бүх орнууд хүн амаа зөгийн балаар бүрэн хангаж чаддаггүй тул импортоор багаггүй тонныг худалдан авдаг. Тухайлбал АНУ, Герман болон Япон улс хамгийн томоохон импортлогчид бөгөөд тэд жилд 250 мянган тонныг гаднаас нийлүүлдэг аж. Харин Европын орнууд 140-150 мянган тонныг импортолдог юм байна.



Дэлхийн зах зээл дээр дулаан орны зөгийн бал нэлээд эрэлт хэрэгцээтэй байдаг. Жишээлбэл, шинэ Зеланд, Иордани, Австралийх гэсэн. Харин хүнсний үйлдвэрлэлд илүү зориулагдсан сорт багатай зөгийн бал дэлхийн зах зээлийн ихэнх хувийг эзэлдэг аж. Албан бус мэдээгээр, дэлхийд 500 компани зөгийн балны импорт болон экспортын үйл ажиллагаа явуулдаг байна. Зөгийн балны төрөл нь маш олон янз байдаг тул дэлхийн зах зээлийн нэгдсэн үнэ ханш гэж байдаггүй.



Өнөөдөр ОХУ-аас хэдий хэмжээний зөгийн бал импортолсон тухай албан ёсны статистик мэдээг олоход бэрх. Албан бус дүгнэлтээр, ямар ч гэсэн зөгийн балны импорт нь экспортоосоо давсан байдаг. Тус улсад зөгийн балны хууль бус наймаа багагүй хувийг эзэлж байгаа нь зөгийн аж ахуй эрхэлдэг компаниудад хүнд цохилт болдог байна. Нөгөө талаас дэлхийн зах зээлд оросын зөгийн бал тодорхой байр суурь эзлэхэд саад учруулдаг аж.



Оросын нутаг дэвсгэр дээр зөгийн бал оруулах тохиолдолд Оросын Хөдөө аж ахуйн хяналт шалгалтын газраас заавал зөвшөөрөл авах ёстой гэнэ. Олон улсын худалдаанд "зөгийн бал" гэсэн нэр томъёо хэрэглэдэг. Хэрвээ үүнийг албан ёсны баримт бичигт ашиглах нөхцөлд Орос улс стандартаа өөрчлөх хэрэгтэй гэж олон улсын шинжээч үзжээ. Орост өнөөдрийг хүртэл зөгийн балны зах зээлийг системтэй судалсан нэг ч эрдэмтэн судлаач байддаггүй аж.



Зөгийн бал нийлүүлэгч томоохон улс орнуудын дэргэд Орост экспортын үйл ажиллагаа эрхэлдэг хоршооллын зөгийн аж ахуй байдаггүй юм байна. Ихэнх хувийн компаниудын дотоодын зах зээл дэх зөгийн балны худалдаа нь экспортоосоо илүү ашигтай ажилладаг.



ОХУ нь хэдийгээр нөөц боломжтой ч зөгийн балны дэлхийн худалдаанд идэвхгүй оролцдог. Оросын Гаалийн газрын мэдээгээр, 2007 онд 420 тонн зөгийн бал экспортолсон нь дэлхийн эхний 10 улсын тоонд багтжээ. Зөгийн балны дэлхийн экспортын 0.1 хувь нь ОХУ, 25 нь Аргентин, 22 нь Хятад, 6 нь Герман, 4 нь Унгар, Энэтхэг, Вьетнам, Бразил болон Мексик, 3 нь Канад, 2 нь Урагвай, харин 22 нь бусад оронд оногддог аж. Тэгвэл импортын хувьд өнгөрсөн онд Украинаас 5 орчим мянган тонн, Хятадаас 3 мянга, бусад орноос 500 тонн зөгийн бал Орост нийлүүлэгдсэн байна.



Шинжээчдийн тэмдэглэж буйгаар, хэдийгээр ургац сайтай байлаа ч ойрын хугацаанд Орос зөгийн балны экспортоо нэмэгдүүлж чадахгүй гэжээ. Олон улсын худалдаанд энэ бүтээгдэхүүнээр Европын холбоо ноёлж, зөгийн балны чанар стандартыг тодорхойлдог, харин Хятад хамгийн бага үнэ тогтоодог тул Оросын экспорт амаргүй давааг туулах болж байна.