Los administradores de TransicionEstructural no se responsabilizan de las opiniones vertidas por los usuarios del foro. Cada usuario asume la responsabilidad de los comentarios publicados.
6 Usuarios y 25 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Greenlandic Politician Shows Mirror To Trump Over Island Invasion Plan: 'He Doesn't Know About...'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMPe_e-WRMkSo, I think Trump doesn't know about Greenlandic people. Um, we don't really value cash and Kardashian lips and fake boobs and stuff like that very ighly. Um, actually, you cannot even own land in Greenland. Uh, you can get an aotment for your house and then you own the house on top of the land. But Greenlanders don't believe in uh the land is for one person is for everyone and so is the seas like the riches that we have there. So, um it's a big mis miscalculation that he thinks that Greenlanders would be incited by cash or something like that. We're not. Um and even if you were to say like $100,000 per person or something like that, we wouldn't give up free healthcare. We wouldn't give up uh free education. Uh we wouldn't give up being a part of Europe. We wouldn't give up on uh our sovereignity uh eventually. And we're a very sovereign people within the Kingdom of Denmark. We're utonomous right now. We do not want to be rich like the Americans are. See how greedy they are.They're even trying to shoot their friends or invade their friends uh just for greed. And we know that there's minerals and oils possibly in ourunderground. And that's worth so much more even than that. But even if we didn't have that, we would still not be bought. So um everyone here knows about the Inuit in Alaska and all of the native tribes uh Indians, American Indians who are there. Um their land was taken from them and they haven't been treated that well in America. And we know that uh Trump is very much uh surrounding himself at least with the uh white power people and we are not white as you can see. We are uh of color and so we know our rights probably would be taken away. Um and we also know that uh we're very good as we are together with Denmark as mentioned before we have free healthcare we have free uh study whatever you want to study you can do that for free and actually government will give you money to study so while you're studying you're getting a grant from from your government so um all of that we wouldn't trade for like the welfare state we wouldn't trade for anything in America but also you have to remember a lot of Greenlanders have family like their mother or father or a grandmother or grandfather who's Danish. We do have a 400 years history together or more uh in terms of being interconnected in that way. So, and we're also seeing a lot of protest in America right now that is unsettling with the ICE agents who are sort of going after a lot of people and uh from here it looks like maybe he's going a lot after brown people and we are considered brown people as you can see. So yeah, we would rather stay with Denmark.
Más de veinte viviendas de lujo de Vigo llevan ya un año a la venta sin despertar interésLa mayoría se ubican en Alcabre, Coruxo y Oia y cuestan más de 1,5 millonesEl lujo inmobiliario está sufriendo un importante pinchazo en Vigo. Según el portal Idealista, hay 42 viviendas definidas como de lujo ubicadas especialmente en las parroquias de Coruxo, Alcabre y San Miguel de Oia. Ninguna baja de los 1,5 millones de euros, mientras que la más cara asciende a los tres millones y es un chalé de 170 metros cuadrados ubicado en O Castro. Y lo que llama la atención es que más de la mitad llevan al menos un año en el mercado, es decir, no encuentran comprador y por tanto siguen vacías. Es más, en algunos casos apenas han despertado interés alguno salvo algunas llamadas e intentos de ofertas a la baja.
El Congreso de EE UU tumba los brutales recortes de Trump en cienciaDemócratas y republicanos aprueban en masa una ley que mantiene casi intactos los presupuestos de agencias claves como NASA, NSF y la Administración Atmosférica, que el presidente quería amputarEl Legislativo de Estados Unidos le ha dado una sonora bofetada al presidente Donald Trump al rechazar de plano los enormes recortes que planteaba en ciencia, investigación y desarrollo. Tras el rechazo del Senado y el Congreso, los presupuestos de las principales agencias estatales donde se hace la investigación más puntera del mundo, como la NASA, la Fundación Nacional de Ciencia o la Agencia Nacional Atmosférica, muy volcada en el estudio del clima, seguirán prácticamente igual que antes de la llegada al poder del magnate.El Gobierno de Donald Trump había propuesto para este año los mayores recortes en investigación que habría visto Estados Unidos desde la II Guerra Mundial. El proyecto se unía a la guerra declarada de la nueva administración contra algunas de las mejores universidades del país, que aún sigue coleando en los tribunales.La reacción de la comunidad científica fue tímida al principio, pero después surgieron iniciativas anónimas respaldadas por miles de investigadores exigiendo que el parlamento frenase los tremendos recortes de Trump que, en pocas palabras, amenazaban con destruir el sistema de investigación más exitoso del mundo que había convertido a Estados Unidos en el país más rico y poderoso. Los recortes afectaron a multitud de proyectos de investigación en todo el planeta hasta límites surrealistas, como que mujeres con riesgo de VIH en Suráfrica se tuvieran que retirar de la vagina los anillos anticonceptivos que financiaba la agencia de cooperación de Estados Unidos.Las nuevas medidas podrían paliar el temido éxodo de científicos de Estados Unidos hacia Europa y otras regiones, un fenómeno que países como España y regiones como Cataluña querían regar con programas millonarios para nutrir sus laboratorios con científicos de primer nivel.Este jueves, el Senado votó 82 a 15 a favor de aprobar miles de millones de dólares en financiación para las agencias federales de ciencia. Hace unos días, la iniciativa ya había sido aprobada por la cámara baja con un aplastante 397 a favor y 28 en contra.“El Congreso ha votado para decir: la ciencia sí importa y vamos a invertir en ella”, ha dicho la senadora demócrata Maria Cantwell tras la aprobación de la ley en la cámara alta, informa Reuters.La iniciativa, ampliamente apoyada por el partido republicano en el que milita Trump, ha sido promovida por la senadora republicana Susan Collins y la demócrata Patty Collins. La norma debe ahora ser ratificada por Trump para entrar en vigor, informa NBC.La NASA se salvaLa ley estabiliza la situación en la agencia espacial NASA, donde Trump promovía recortar a la mitad el presupuesto de ciencia y cancelar 55 misiones. El presidente promovía un recorte de 6.000 millones de dólares sobre un presupuesto de 24.900 millones, pero el Senado aprobó un recorte mucho menor, asignando 24.440 millones de dólares, según el resumen de la ley publicado por la senadora Collins.La medida dedica 1.600 millones a astrofísica, y rescata proyectos como el telescopio espacial Nancy Grace Roman dedicado al estudio de la energía oscura y el observatorio de mundos habitables, enfocado en el descubrimiento de nuevos planetas más allá del sistema solar.El proyecto de ley también refuerza la exploración espacial humana, ahora que Estados Unidos se disputa con China ser el primero en llevar astronautas a la superficie de la Luna. Este capítulo, que incluye el programa Artemis, recibe 117 millones más de lo presupuestado, lo que supone un espaldarazo para la próxima misión tripulada que orbitará la Luna, Artemis 2, que puede despegar el 6 de febrero, y el primer aterrizaje en el satélite en medio siglo, previsto para 2028 con la misión Artemis 3.El proyecto de ley rechaza la propuesta del presidente Trump de eliminar los programas de Participación en Ciencia, Tecnología, Ingeniería y Matemáticas (STEM) de la NASA y les asigna 143 millones de dólares, incluidos programas dedicados a fomentar la educación y la investigación en universidades minoritarias.La Fundación Nacional de Ciencia —que realiza buena parte de la investigación científica de Estados Unidos en campos como las nuevas fuentes de energía y la computación cuántica y en su historia ha financiado el trabajo de más de 250 premios Nobel— recibe una financiación de 8.750 millones de dólares, lo que anula la propuesta del presidente Trump de recortarla en un 57%. El proyecto de ley destina 7.180 millones de dólares a las actividades de investigación y relacionadas de la NSF, un nivel equivalente al del ejercicio fiscal 2025. Los programas de educación y formación de la NSF, destinados a construir la fuerza laboral innovadora del futuro, reciben una financiación de 938 millones de dólares, rechazando la propuesta del presidente Trump de eliminar estos programas.También respiraría con alivio la NOAA, principal agencia estatal de investigación meteorológica, que ha sido otra de las dianas de los ataques de Trump. El proyecto de ley asigna 6.171 millones de dólares a la NOAA, 1.670 millones por encima de la solicitud del presidente Trump y mantiene los presupuestos del año anterior. El proyecto destina 1.460 millones de dólares al Servicio Meteorológico Nacional para mejorar las capacidades de predicción del clima, incluyendo un incremento de 10 millones de dólares para reforzar el personal en las Oficinas de Pronóstico Meteorológico. Además, asigna 1.670 millones de dólares para mantener la generación actual de satélites meteorológicos y climáticos de la NOAA e invertir en satélites de próxima generación, lo que supone 135 millones por encima de la solicitud del presidente Trump.
https://www.baha.com/EU-said-to-prepare-euro93B-tariffs-in-retaliation-to-US/news/details/65499593CitarEU said to prepare €93B tariffs in retaliation to USEuropean nations are weighing imposing tariffs worth €93 billion on American goods as retaliation for United States President Donald Trump's threats of tariffs related to disagreements over Greenland, the Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing a European diplomat familiar with the plans.According to the report, the retaliatory countermeasures could also include restricting US companies from the European Union's markets, and their aim is to give European leaders some leverage for negotiations with Trump at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos next week.The report on potential countermeasures follows France's President Emmanuel Macron reportedly asking the EU to use the bloc's "anti-coercion instrument," which was adopted in 2023 but never used to date.
EU said to prepare €93B tariffs in retaliation to USEuropean nations are weighing imposing tariffs worth €93 billion on American goods as retaliation for United States President Donald Trump's threats of tariffs related to disagreements over Greenland, the Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing a European diplomat familiar with the plans.According to the report, the retaliatory countermeasures could also include restricting US companies from the European Union's markets, and their aim is to give European leaders some leverage for negotiations with Trump at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos next week.The report on potential countermeasures follows France's President Emmanuel Macron reportedly asking the EU to use the bloc's "anti-coercion instrument," which was adopted in 2023 but never used to date.
https://www.expansion.com/economia/2026/01/15/6968cc38468aebfc178b45a6.htmlSaludos.
https://www.elespanol.com/madrid/sociedad/20260117/oscar-villar-edgar-sanchez-venden-primera-casa-personas-comunidad-madrid-chale-eur/1003744093220_0.htmlPropietariado de una habitación.https://www.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/2026-01-17/maria-elvira-roca-historiadora-1qrt_4282452/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZnEBrZGUk&t=10s (Fantástico)Lo que está pasando, no es nuevo.
Buenas a todos.Simplemente para recordaros que está pasando. Está pasando en este mismo momento.Por poner la fecha, yo pondría el día "de la liberación" cuando poco después se desplomó un 20 % el SP. Para los que creáis que no, que eso ya pasó y que hay que seguir esperando, os digo que no es así.Solo estamos viendo los capítulos siguientes. Es una serie.Y por cierto, qué forma de caer tan lamentable para los EE.UU. El chivo expiatorio está en el horno.
Why Trump will get Greenland, Wolfgang Munchau Europe is too weak to fightEurope failed to unify itself; now Trump is taking advantage.(Credit: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty)You can draw a neat line around the eight countries Donald Trump has targeted for his 10% punitive tariff: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. Europe’s liberal north-west is trying to frustrate Trump’s grab of Greenland.But there are 21 other member states who have not been sanctioned. One is Italy. Giorgia Meloni has already said she told Trump that his tariff threat was a mistake. I think it was too. But is Meloni going to break with the President over a patch of land that is far away and irrelevant to Italy’s security and economy? Will Spain? Or Greece? Or Malta and Cyprus? What about eastern Europe? Will Viktor Orbán, Andrej Babiš, and Robert Fico — the populist prime ministers of Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia respectively — run to the rescue of their liberal friends in Denmark? Even Poland, with a government that is as pro-EU as it can get, is hardly going to sacrifice its strategic alliance with America over a few rocks of ice near the Arctic.The truth is that the Europeans never really cared about Greenland. It was the first country to leave the EU – in 1985 – long before Brexit. It’s a fishing nation; fish is over 90% of its exports. And it left because EU fisheries policies would have deprived it of the right to manage its own stocks. Greenland could have been the EU’s, had it really wanted to keep it.Citar“A union in which member states retain full sovereignty, is only as strong as its weakest member.”So here is my bold prediction: Trump will win his battle for Greenland. The Europeans will not stop him, for they are weak and divided. The irony is that the EU chose this military and geostrategic weakness. It chose to deprive our militaries of necessary resources in favour of welfare transfers and support for NGOs. A decade ago, the eurozone had an opportunity to create a political, economic and financial union in response to the sovereign debt crisis. But it chose not to because it was inconvenient. Meanwhile, the UK chose to leave.When the European member states of Nato decided to bow to Trump’s pressure and increase defence spending last year, they did not create a European defence union. They can’t agree on anything: a joint Franco-German-Spanish fighter aircraft project is on the rocks because the three countries cannot agree the workshare. Instead, each has only reinforced its dependence on the US. Everybody thinks they are better off with their own special relationship. But as Benjamin Franklin once said: “He that lies down with dogs, shall rise up with fleas.”And the Europeans have just woken up, and this time they are really cross, clamouring to issue press statements to condemn Trump. I am hearing commentators urging the EU to deploy the Anti Coercion Instrument, a legal device that came into force two years ago to counter economic pressure from adversaries. They insist that the EU is stronger than it thinks. It is the world’s largest single market and customs union, is it not? And it deems itself a regulatory super-power.It is deluded. The EU’s single market is full of regulatory barriers. Its hostile green and tech regulation did not change the world for the better; it succeeded only in damaging Europe’s competitiveness. As a result, unlike China and America, Europe will not share in the AI boom. The EU, in its current form, is further from becoming a superpower than it was 30 years ago.A union in which member states retain full sovereignty is only as strong as its weakest member. And that’s Germany right now. Given the state of Germany’s economy, and its dependence on the US, it would be utter madness for the EU to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs.What also mitigates against joint action is the bloc’s lingering delusion that someone or something out there is going to stop Trump. Last year, European leaders believed that the financial markets would push back against his tariffs, only to be shocked that after an initial wobble, Wall Street lined up behind its President. When the Trump administration went after Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, last week, the markets missed another opportunity to crash. Now the Europeans are convinced that the Supreme Court will block the tariffs.On this narrow issue, they may actually be right. But they are missing the bigger picture. We know there is going to a Supreme Court ruling tomorrow that may be the long-awaited ruling on the tariffs. We know that some of the justices reacted with scepticism to the legal arguments in a hearing with Trump’s lawyers. There is indeed a chance that the Trump administration will lose the case. I can already see The Guardian’s celebratory headlines.But even if the ruling goes against Trump, he will still win. This case is not about whether a US president is allowed to impose tariffs for reasons of national security. It is about whether the Carter-era International Emergency Economic Powers Act is the correct legal base for his tariffs. Trump choose IEEPA because it gave him the largest degree of discretion. But there are alternative laws that would allow him to get the same done.Trump could, for example, reinstitute a crippling tariff bureaucracy as he did with steel and aluminium. I recall a story from a German exporter of agricultural machinery who was forced to list the steel and aluminium content of the 15,000 parts of the product. He gave up. It was an impossible undertaking.In protest at this latest tariff threat, the European Parliament decided to freeze the ratification of the EU-US trade deal, under which it promised to cut tariffs on US goods to zero. As a result, the deal may collapse. Similarly, the UK-US deal is also now at risk. I don’t think Trump is quaking in his boots.The President has many ways to force the Europeans into line. He could impose his own peace treaty on Ukraine, side-lining the EU. He could also go further and switch off US intelligence sharing not only for Ukraine, but for European Nato members as well. He could also announce that he would not authorise US troops to protect any Nato countries that push against American interests — effectively giving Vladimir Putin free licence to wage war in Europe.It is hardly surprising, then, that the only people outside the US who celebrated his tariff announcement were the Russians. Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of Russia’s Direct Investment Fund and a Putin adviser, posted on X that finally the US and Europeans have something important to talk about in Davos this week.So, what are Europe’s options? The EU was never going to be a military alliance, but at least it had chance to become an economic one. To be ready for a geopolitical fight today, though, the EU would have needed to evolve into a political union a decade ago. The eurozone crisis between 2008 and 2015 was the final, missed, moment where the bloc could have taken that step. Since then, Right-wing parties have been on the rise in France and Germany; so has euro-scepticism. The window for political unification has closed.So should Europe send more troops to Greenland? Fight the guy, some hot-headed commentators suggest, transitioning from complacency to panic without a moment’s pause. Fight Putin and Trump at the same time? I think not. Such a move would be Europe’s “Charge of the Light Brigade” moment.No. The only option the EU has now is to let Trump be Trump. These tariffs reveal the US strategy. He does not seek a military solution. He is not a natural warrior. Nor are we. So, with no alternative on offer, let’s drive up the price. And when all is said and done, why not hand him the Nobel Peace Prize too?
“A union in which member states retain full sovereignty, is only as strong as its weakest member.”