Categories
Computers

Entrevista con Rich Eisen: su problema de viaje, sus sueños de jugar partidos de la NFL en París y Dublín y rechazar el prejuicio de los Jets

[ad_1]

El partido de Rich Eisen es uno de los partidos del Tour Europeo de la NFL y le ha picado el gusanillo de los viajes. Después de cancelar el partido del domingo entre Vikingos de Minnesota y Jets de Nueva YorkRegresará al Tottenham Hotspur Stadium el domingo antes de viajar por separado a Alemania el próximo mes.

“Me encanta. Quiero decir, me encantaría convocar un juego en el que no tenga un desfase horario loco. Pero aparte de eso, me encanta venir aquí. Amo la ciudad, amo a la gente, amo a los fanáticos. Me encanta el ambiente. Realmente, es una bendición estar en los Spurs”. “No puedo esperar hasta el próximo fin de semana”.

hablando con el atletaAisen tiene algo que quiere desahogar.

“He recibido muchas críticas en la parte superior del Medio Oeste, en Minnesota, porque fui azafato de los Jets, pero les diré esto. Cualquiera que me conozca sabe que las oportunidades que tengo al convocar estos juegos son muy importante para mí los aprecio, y lo último que haría es pasar una fracción de segundo convirtiéndome en Homero, sabiendo que eso alienaría a la mitad de los espectadores y eso no es lo que quiero hacer, o lo que alguna vez pensaría. haciendo.

“Por eso se llama retransmisión, ¿verdad? No es una retransmisión estricta, no es una retransmisión en chorro. Todo lo que quería era un partido reñido. Conseguimos uno. Y me gustó mucho el final, fue intenso. Aarón Rodgers Él sostiene la pelota en sus manos y luego termina en manos de la persona que los torturó antes. Esteban Gilmore.

“Si no Sam Darnold Después de vencer a los Jets con un último tiro, había que elegir a Stephon Gilmore como defensor para lograr ese tipo de final irónico para los Jets si no ganaban, y ciertamente parecía que no lo harían cuando tenían marca de 17-0. . Así que estaba muy emocionado de ver un partido cerrado”.


Eisen estaba contento porque fue un partido cerrado entre los Vikings y los Jets (Julian Feeney/Getty Images)

En el Rich Eisen Show la semana pasada, Eisen dijo que los Vikings de Kevin O'Connell eran el verdadero negocio. Después de verlos anotar 5-0 en LondresSe detiene ahí.

“El entrenador es fantástico. Es realmente un buen tipo y sabe tomar el pulso de su equipo, no sólo los latidos simbólicos de su corazón, sino también su mente. Sabe exactamente lo que estos muchachos pueden manejar”.

“Él sabe exactamente cómo, junto con Brian Flores, el coordinador defensivo, hacer que las cosas sean más agotadoras para sus jugadores, quienes tienen un coeficiente intelectual muy alto.

“Los Vikings ganaron ese juego y ahora tienen un descanso.

“Eche un vistazo al resto de esta sección. Negro Es claramente la clase restante, y osos Intentan ponerse de pie. El domingo dieron un gran paso en este sentido y los veremos la próxima semana aquí en Londres. Y luego lo tienes empacadores Quienes también pusieron el pie firme. Es un tramo muy difícil, pero están ahí. “Están arriba 5-0 y parecen ser muy buenos en eso”.

profundizar

NFL Network transmitirá desde el norte de Londres y Chicago será la sede del juego. jaguares de jacksonville En el estadio del Tottenham Hotspur. Primera victoria de la temporada el fin de semana pasado Indianápolis Ve a Jacksonville con marca de 1-4 cuando viajen a Londres con un récord perdedor nuevamente (tienen marca de 0-8-3 volando).

Eisen siente que es un buen momento para que el equipo sea su hogar lejos de casa.

“Es difícil estar fuera (por tanto tiempo), pero los Jaguars pueden aprovechar eso. Probablemente estén 100 por ciento buscando alejarse de todo después de un inicio de 1-4.

“Y sé que se sienten mejor consigo mismos porque ganaron, pero tenerlos atrincherados aquí, donde se sienten cómodos jugando, están acostumbrados a jugar… tienen una historia de ganar y también de cambiar la temporada, si es necesario. Y parece que es necesario.

Este será el partido número 38 jugado en Londres y el primero en el que competirán dos selecciones número 1 del draft.

mientras Trevor Lorenzo Aterrizó en uno de los peores lugares en la historia de la NFL. (en gran parte debido al fracaso de Urban Meyer), que es donde entró Caleb Williams Una situación diferente y más feliz.

“Caleb tiene suerte de haber sido seleccionado primero en la general por un equipo que estaba usando su selección allí porque el peor equipo de la liga se lo cambió. Entonces Caleb no se unió al peor equipo en NFL. Llegó a un equipo que estaba un poco más preparado para él. Veremos cómo lucen contra Jacksonville. Como señalamos, esta NFC Norte parece ser el extremo más profundo del grupo de la NFL este año.

Por segundo año consecutivo, los Jags estarán en Inglaterra nueve noches. Está previsto que aterricen el viernes, aunque el huracán Milton retrasó su salida. Los Jags se marcharán inmediatamente después del partido en Wembley con Patriotas de Nueva Inglaterra El 20 de octubre.

“Es una enorme ventaja competitiva para ellos sobre Nueva Inglaterra”, dice Eisen. “Y los Patriots tendrán que lidiar con un equipo que ya está acostumbrado a la zona horaria, pero eso es algo que cualquier equipo puede superar. No creo que vaya a ser decisivo”.


Eisen hablando en el evento de 2024 (Olivia Wong/Getty Images)

Desde que Wembley albergó su primer partido competitivo de la temporada regular fuera de Norteamérica en 2007, se han jugado 46 partidos en Londres, Ciudad de México, Munich, Frankfurt y São Paulo. Los rumores sobre una franquicia en Londres se han calmado, pero Eisen ve un futuro continental para la NFL.

“Creo que así será, no sé si una franquicia de la NFL puede tener éxito o ser viable en el extranjero, debido a muchos factores diferentes.

“La NFL estaría dispuesta a poseer un paquete internacional de juegos que luego podría armarse y venderse a otro postor por una cantidad significativa de dinero, y ya estamos viendo que se están armando.

“A la gente en los Estados Unidos le encanta esa cuarta ventana para el fútbol. En los Estados Unidos, es la 1 p. m. ET, las 4 p. m. ET, las 8:20 p. m. ET. Un domingo, si agrega las 9 p. m., hora de inicio del Este: 30 a. m. – que es temprano para la costa oeste, 6:30 a. m., pero a la gente le gusta esa cuarta ventana para el fútbol americano, y si se hiciera con regularidad, no se escucharía mucha oposición de los fanáticos de la NFL.

El mes que viene, Eisen regresa a Alemania. Después de los dos partidos del año pasado en Frankfurt, el Allianz Arena de Múnich acogerá su segundo partido. “Fue una vista increíble, simplemente increíble. Así que espero volver a salir allí. panteras Un poco mejor cuando los veo. y Gigantes “La humanidad tuvo que dar un gran salto para mejorar un poco el fútbol de Múnich”, afirma Eisen.

profundizar

La próxima temporada, la NFL accederá a una nueva zona con capacidad para 85.000 asientos Renovación del Santiago Bernabéu Alojando el primer partido de la NFL en España. Aizen está emocionado por ello.

“Oh, me encantaría hacer eso”, dice. “Pero repito, no sé cuáles son los planes de la NFL: poner eso en NFL Network, o que le van a hacer al Madrid lo que le hicieron a Brasil, que es que este sea el primer partido internacional desde entonces. el inicio de la temporada. “La puerta es el viernes después del jueves, no sé si será una nueva posición.

“En algún momento, me imagino que habrá partidos consecutivos, semana tras semana, jugados en la primera ventana de tiempo en los EE. UU., en un lugar extranjero en Europa, muy probablemente. Sería un momento ideal del día allí. para enviarlo de regreso a los EE. UU. como el primer juego en Hoy es domingo.

“Madrid sería parte de ese mundo. Luego Roma, París y otros lugares de Europa. Dublín sería increíble. Me apuntaría a eso en un abrir y cerrar de ojos, ya que ya lo hemos visto”. Los partidos de fútbol universitario van bien allí. Seguiré mi camino con eso. Escandinavia… ¡Vamos!

(Imagen superior: Arturo Holmes/Getty Images)

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Bisnis Industri

50 Cent pone la cara de Donald Trump en la portada de su famoso álbum Get Rich or Die Tryin'

[ad_1]

tTras intento de asesinato al expresidente Donald TrumpEl rabiro 50 centavos Hizo una declaración al incluir el rostro de Trump en la icónica portada de su álbum. “Hazte rico o muere intentándolo'”. La foto editada fue exhibida durante la ceremonia. 50 centavos en Bostón Sábado por la noche mientras interpretaba la canción. “muchos hombres” De su primer álbum en 2003.

En la portada modificada hay una cara. tarjeta de triunfo Se coloca sobre el cuerpo desnudo del rapero, de pie detrás de un vidrio que parece roto por una bala. Esta elección creativa parece ser un guiño al reciente tiroteo en un mitin de campaña de Trump. tarjeta de triunfo.

“Muchos hombres” cuenta la historia de una experiencia cercana a la muerte 50 centavos Cuando le dispararon nueve veces en 2000.

“A Trump le están disparando y ahora estoy en tendencia”, escribió 50 Cent en las redes sociales, publicando la portada editada.

El expresidente casi muere durante un mitin Mayordomo, Pensilvaniael sábado por la tarde, cuando Thomas Mateo Crookes(20 años) disparando un rifle estilo AR. Francotiradores de Servicio Secreto Los neutralizaron Estafadores Después de ser despedido varias veces.

50 Cent pone la cara de Donald Trump en IC

Trump agradece a los agentes del Servicio Secreto

tarjeta de triunfoSufrió una herida en la oreja derecha y los agentes de policía lo sacaron rápidamente del lugar. Servicio Secreto. Después del accidente, le agradecí. Servicio Secreto Y a las fuerzas del orden por su rápida respuesta a través de su plataforma. Verdad social.

“Quiero agradecer al Servicio Secreto de Estados Unidos y a todas las agencias policiales por su rápida respuesta al tiroteo que acaba de ocurrir en Butler, Pensilvania”, dijo. tarjeta de triunfo.

“Lo más importante es que quiero expresar mi más sentido pésame a la familia de la persona que murió en la manifestación y también a la familia de otra persona que resultó gravemente herida. Es increíble que un acto así pueda ocurrir en nuestro país.

“Aún no se sabe nada sobre el tirador, que ahora está muerto. Me alcanzó una bala que atravesó la parte superior de mi oreja derecha. Supe de inmediato que algo andaba mal porque escuché un silbido y disparos y lo sentí de inmediato”. “La bala atravesó mi piel. Sangraba mucho, así que me di cuenta de lo que estaba pasando”.



[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

How rich is too rich?

[ad_1]

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth Ingrid Robeyns Allen Lane (2024)

As radical as they might seem, calls for limits on wealth are as old as civilization itself. The Hebrew Bible and Torah recognized years during which debts should be cancelled, slaves set free and property redistributed from rich to poor. In classical Greece, Aristotle praised cities that kept wealth inequality in check to enhance political stability. And in 1942, then-US president Franklin D. Roosevelt argued that annual incomes should be capped at the current equivalent of US$480,000.

In Limitarianism, Dutch and Belgian economist and philosopher Ingrid Robeyns argues that it’s time for twenty-first-century governments to do the same. She explores what setting limits on wealth ownership might mean, and why our societies should want to do so. It is a fresh take on a much-needed discussion at a time when, for example, the richest 1% of the US population owns about as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

Robeyns, who has studied how people perceive wealth, opens with a provocative proposal — governments should set a wealth limit on the order of 10 million euros or US dollars per person. This figure, more of a guideline than a strict cut-off, “strikes a balance between what different moral and political considerations tell us is the maximum level” of wealth one should own, she explains.

Why cap wealth at €10 million? The author’s research across Europe suggests that this level, or an even lower “riches line”, would be broadly accepted by the population. Among a representative sample of Dutch people, for example, Robeyns and her team found that nine out of ten respondents agreed that having wealth exceeding €4 million for a family of four — in terms of ownership of certain assets, such as a mansion, a second home, luxury vehicles and a specific amount of savings — qualifies as being super-rich. In low-income countries, that threshold could be much lower.

Robeyns points out that extreme wealth “is often tied to immoral and criminal practices”. As evidence, she notes the massive use of tax evasion among ultra-wealthy people and their firms. Whether legal or not, she labels these practices as unethical. Going further, she reminds us that current wealth inequalities have some roots in historical practices such as slavery or military conquests — as scholars of global history have revealed, for example in Sven Beckert’s 2014 book Empire of Cotton.

To bolster her case and persuade detractors, Robeyns argues that limiting wealth accumulation would make societies better overall. Indeed, although individuals might disagree on whether market outcomes are fair, many would agree on the value of social-welfare objectives, such as having a healthy democratic system or offering equal opportunities for all.

Disproportionate power

As a growing literature in economics has shown, more wealth at the very top has often meant fewer resources to lift people at the bottom, contrary to the mantra of trickle-down economics. But wealth concentration isn’t just an issue that affects poor people, Robeyns argues — it is an issue for everyone. The discussion that follows is reminiscent of, and expands, the debate sparked by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s 2009 book The Spirit Level.

General view of houses constructed over ravines in a poor zone behind rich housing developments in Mexico City , on July 24, 2012.

Houses built over ravines in a low-income area near wealthy housing developments in Mexico City.Credit: Omar Torres/AFP/Getty

Over the past two decades, as Robeyns sets out, scholars have increasingly documented how democracy can be undermined by the disproportionate political power of media tycoons, rich founders of philanthropic organizations and large political-party donors. Extreme wealth concentration limits governments’ abilities to invest in public goods, such as education, health care and climate-change mitigation. And meritocratic promises are endangered when extreme wealth inequality is transmitted from one generation to the next.

Robeyns discusses policies that would constitute the essence of a limitarian policy platform, acknowledging that there is no one‑size-fits-all solution. Her proposals build on the work of Anthony Atkinson’s book Inequality (2015), Thomas Piketty’s A Brief History of Equality (2021) and Isabelle Ferreras and colleagues’ Democratize Work (2022). These include giving workers more rights over firms’ strategic decision-making and restoring governments’ fiscal agency by changing tax rules to limit the possibilities for tax evasion.

Introducing steep taxes on inheritance should also be high on the limitarian agenda. Robeyns suggests a limit of €200,000 on the total amount that can be inherited by an individual throughout their lifetime. The funds collected would be redistributed by the state to younger citizens so that everyone would “start their adult life without worrying unduly about how they will get by”.

Looming over all these discussions is the ecological crisis and what limitarianism means on a planet with finite resources. In a dedicated chapter, the author ponders: “There is so much good that money above the riches line could do, if only it were used for addressing collective problems,” such as climate change. Here, Robeyns argues that it would be politically and administratively easier to limit assets than to impose individual quotas to cap the appropriation of ecological resources, such as water or energy. Others might view the policies proposed by the author as equally difficult to introduce. The tough question of how to implement such limits in increasingly polarized and competitive electoral systems remains open.

Limitarianism is a thought-provoking read for all those interested in inequality. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a founding text of political modernity in the eighteenth century, stated in its first article that: “Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good.” As billionaire wealth increasingly defines our era, it is time to engage in public debates about the point at which wealth concentration ceases to serve the common good. A starting place for this discussion is to ask ourselves when enough is enough: is it €10 million, or more, or less? Robeyns’s original book sets out the proposals and logic to do just that.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

Why the world cannot afford the rich

[ad_1]

As environmental, social and humanitarian crises escalate, the world can no longer afford two things: first, the costs of economic inequality; and second, the rich. Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people captured nearly twice as much of the new global wealth created as did the other 99% of individuals put together1, and in 2019 they emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity2. In the decade to 2022, the world’s billionaires more than doubled their wealth, to almost US$12 trillion.

The evidence gathered by social epidemiologists, including us, shows that large differences in income are a powerful social stressor that is increasingly rendering societies dysfunctional. For example, bigger gaps between rich and poor are accompanied by higher rates of homicide and imprisonment. They also correspond to more infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse and COVID-19 deaths, as well as higher rates of teenage pregnancy and lower levels of child well-being, social mobility and public trust3,4. The homicide rate in the United States — the most unequal Western democracy — is more than 11 times that in Norway (see go.nature.com/49fuujr). Imprisonment rates are ten times as high, and infant mortality and obesity rates twice as high.

These problems don’t just hit the poorest individuals, although the poorest are most badly affected. Even affluent people would enjoy a better quality of life if they lived in a country with a more equal distribution of wealth, similar to a Scandinavian nation. They might see improvements in their mental health and have a reduced chance of becoming victims of violence; their children might do better at school and be less likely to take dangerous drugs.

The costs of inequality are also excruciatingly high for governments. For example, the Equality Trust, a charity based in London (of which we are patrons and co-founders), estimated that the United Kingdom alone could save more than £100 billion ($126 billion) per year if it reduced its inequalities to the average of those in the five countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that have the smallest income differentials — Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands5. And that is considering just four areas: greater number of years lived in full health, better mental health, reduced homicide rates and lower imprisonment rates.

Many commentators have drawn attention to the environmental need to limit economic growth and instead prioritize sustainability and well-being6,7. Here we argue that tackling inequality is the foremost task of that transformation. Greater equality will reduce unhealthy and excess consumption, and will increase the solidarity and cohesion that are needed to make societies more adaptable in the face of climate and other emergencies.

Social anxieties drive stress

The underlying reasons for inequality having such profound and wide-ranging impacts are psychosocial. By accentuating differences in status and social class — for example, through the type of car someone drives, their clothing or where they live — inequality increases feelings of superiority and of inferiority. The view that some people are worth more than others can undermine people’s confidence and feelings of self-worth8. And, as studies of cortisol responses show, worry about how others see us is a powerful stressor9.

Rows of women queue for food parcels in Lagos, Nigeria

People queue for food parcels in Lagos, Nigeria.Credit: Temilade Adelaja/Reuters

Rates of ‘status anxiety’ have been found to be increased in all income groups in more-unequal societies10. Chronic stress has well-documented effects on mortality — it can double death rates11. Health-related behaviours are also affected by stress. Diet, exercise and smoking all show social gradients, but people are least likely to adopt healthy lifestyles when they feel stressed.

Violence and bullying are also linked to competition for social status. Aggression is frequently triggered by disrespect, humiliation and loss of face. Bullying among schoolchildren is around six times as common in more-unequal countries12. In the United States, homicide rates were five times as high in states with higher levels of inequality as in those with a more even distribution of wealth13.

Status compels consumption

Inequality also increases consumerism. Perceived links between wealth and self-worth drive people to buy goods associated with high social status and thus enhance how they appear to others — as US economist Thorstein Veblen set out more than a century ago in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). Studies show that people who live in more-unequal societies spend more on status goods14.

Our work has shown that the amount spent on advertising as a proportion of gross domestic product is higher in countries with greater inequality. The well-publicized lifestyles of the rich promote standards and ways of living that others seek to emulate, triggering cascades of expenditure for holiday homes, swimming pools, travel, clothes and expensive cars.

Oxfam reports that, on average, each of the richest 1% of people in the world produces 100 times the emissions of the average person in the poorest half of the world’s population15. That is the scale of the injustice. As poorer countries raise their material standards, the rich will have to lower theirs.

Inequality also makes it harder to implement environmental policies. Changes are resisted if people feel that the burden is not being shared fairly. For example, in 2018, the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) protests erupted across France in response to President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to implement an ‘eco-tax’ on fuel by adding a few percentage points to pump prices. The proposed tax was seen widely as unfair — particularly for the rural poor, for whom diesel and petrol are necessities. By 2019, the government had dropped the idea. Similarly, Brazilian truck drivers protested against rises in fuel tax in 2018, disrupting roads and supply chains.

Do unequal societies perform worse when it comes to the environment, then? Yes. For rich, developed countries for which data were available, we found a strong correlation between levels of equality and a score on an index we created of performance in five environmental areas: air pollution; recycling of waste materials; the carbon emissions of the rich; progress towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; and international cooperation (UN treaties ratified and avoidance of unilateral coercive measures).

That correlation clearly holds when social and health problems are also factored in (see ‘Unequal outcomes’). To show this, we combined our environmental performance index with another that we developed previously that considers ten health and social problems: infant mortality, life expectancy, mental illness, obesity, educational attainment, teenage births, homicides, imprisonment, social mobility and trust. There’s a clear trend, with more-unequal societies having worse scores.

UNEQUAL OUTCOMES. Nations with large gaps between rich and poor tend to have worse health statistics, more violence and worse pollution than do more-equal countries.

Source: Analysis by R. G. Wilkinson & K. E. Pickett

Other studies have also shown that more-equal societies are more cohesive, with higher levels of trust and participation in local groups16. And, compared with less-equal rich countries, another 10–20% of the populations of more-equal countries think that environmental protection should be prioritized over economic growth17. More-equal societies also perform better on the Global Peace Index (which ranks states on their levels of peacefulness), and provide more foreign aid. The UN target is for countries to spend 0.7% of their gross national income (GNI) on foreign aid; Sweden and Norway each give around 1% of their GNI, whereas the United Kingdom gives 0.5% and the United States only 0.2%.

Policymakers must act

The scientific evidence is stark that reducing inequality is a fundamental precondition for addressing the environmental, health and social crises the world is facing. It’s essential that policymakers act quickly to reverse decades of rising inequality and curb the highest incomes.

First, governments should choose progressive forms of taxation, which shift economic burdens from people with low incomes to those with high earnings, to reduce inequality and to pay for the infrastructure that the world needs to transition to carbon neutrality and sustainability. Although governments might baulk at this suggestion, there’s plenty of headroom. For example, tax rates on the highest incomes in the United States were well above 70% for about half of the twentieth century — much higher than today’s top rate of 37%. To shore up public support, governments need to make a strong case that the whole of society should contribute to funding the clean energy transition and good health.

International agreements to close tax havens and loopholes must be made. Corporate tax avoidance is estimated to cost poor countries $100 billion per year — enough to educate an extra 124 million children and prevent perhaps 8 million maternal and infant deaths annually. OECD member countries are responsible for more than two-thirds of these tax losses, according to the Tax Justice Network, an advocacy group in Bristol, UK. The OECD estimates that low- or middle-income countries lose three times as much to tax havens as they receive in foreign aid.

Although not yet tried, the merits of a consumption tax — calculated on the basis of personal income minus savings — to restrain consumption should also be considered. Unlike value-added and sales taxes, such a tax could be made very progressive. Bans on advertising tobacco, alcohol, gambling and prescription drugs are common internationally, but taxes to restrict advertising more generally would help to reduce consumption. Energy costs might also be made progressive by charging more per unit at higher levels of consumption.

Legislation and incentives will also be needed to ensure that large companies — which dominate the global economy — are run more fairly. For example, business practices such as employee ownership, representation on company boards and share ownership, as well as mutuals and cooperatives, tend to reduce the scale of income and wealth inequality. In contrast to the 200:1 ratio reported by one analyst for the top to the bottom pay rates among the 100 largest-worth companies listed on the FTSE 100 stock-market index (see go.nature.com/3p9cdbv), the Mondragon group of Spanish cooperatives has an agreed maximum ratio of 9:1. And such companies perform well in ethical and sustainability terms. The Mondragon group came 11th in Fortune magazine’s 2020 ‘Change the World’ list, which recognizes companies for implementing innovative business strategies with a positive global impact.

Reducing economic inequality is not a panacea for health, social and environmental problems, but it is central to solving them all. Greater equality confers the same benefits on a society however it is achieved. Countries that adopt multifaceted approaches will go furthest and fastest.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link