COPY THE TEXT BELOW TO NOTEPAD> THEN COPY FROM NOTEPAD TO THE EXAM PAGE
LINK TO AUDIO GO TO https://youtu.be/BjNWwxPD62I TO DOWNLOAD AUDIO
Great.
So could you just tell us a little more about what you do here at the BSU and
what your position consists of?
Well
I arrived here at BSU in January of 2006 at that point I was an instructor and
I came in and was focusing on crisis management and crisis communication
negotiation because of my experience as a negotiator and love of that. And also
interest in a global hostage-taking. I became interested in moving up and got a
great opportunity to become the unit chief behavioral scientist since I put in
and eventually I was selected. And since then I've been reworking the BSU and
expanding the programs. Typically we have been focused on violent crime and we
are the ones that developed profiling Criminal Investigative Analysis and term
victimology and serial killing. All that came through our national academy
classes over the years back in the 70s and 80s. And so what I want to do is
Unit Chief and what I'll continue to do is move it forward and getting into
areas like cyber and national security threats in addition to doing our staple
file-at-crime mission that we've always done.
Great.
So would you mind just describing the structure of the unit and the function of
the various staff members you have here.
Sure.
The Behavioral Science Unit has been around since 1972 as part of the FBI's
training division and we are physically located in the basement area of the FBI
Academy in Quantico Virginia. We are one of a number of training units here at
the FBI Academy and what our main function is here is to train our National
Academy students that come in. And the National Academy is kind of like a war
college for law enforcement it's been in existence since about 1935. At the
time that this academy was formed or built in 1972, the national academy program
was moved over here. And what that program involves is experienced law
enforcement officers mid-level management types that compete-- come to the FBI
Academy for about 11 weeks. And when they get here they choose whatever courses
they want to take. If it's in behavioral science, they'll come to our unit
and take our courses. If it's in leadership, they go to leadership units. And
there's also forensics and communication and other areas that they can learn.
Now with that training in addition to National Academy, we also teach new agents
training. We teach the FBI intel analysts and we take our courses and our
blocks of instruction literally worldwide all over the world where we'll get
requests for training from everyone. And now in addition to supporting our
traditional law enforcement clients, we also train the military, the intel
community, and some of our international partners. And that's what we
do that's our bread and butter. Now along with the training, we also do
research and we also do consultations. And our tag line or kind of the way
we do business is that if we train we research it and if we train it, we consult
it. And that's an important model because the consoles are the things that a
lot of times where we're known for we're a police officer will call us and
he'll let's say ask for interview strategies. Let say he's working in a gang
matter-- a violent crime maybe aberrant behavior weird sexual type crime, and
he'll call and want help and he may only have one shot to interview the
subject. And so we try our best to give him some idea of strategies and tactics
to get the person to confess or at least make admissions based on the behavior
Hello,update your answers!
ReplyDeleteHi. Did you take the exam already?
DeleteHi, the audio 7 and 2 are not correct, please update them.
ReplyDeletethanks
thanks for the good work kindly help me transcribe these
ReplyDeleteAUnknown Speaker 0:00
you talked about the response to the financial crisis and perhaps not enough deficit spending as a response. My question is are deficit spending and increased taxes on the rich tools that should be used in conjunction, you talk about their applications, and their uses are together or alone.
Unknown Speaker 0:16
okay, let me give you I've been trying to figure out, how should we pay for a progressive agenda, put it that way, there's a bunch of things we should be doing, we should be clearly spending quite a lot more, especially on children, and we need to be spending on infrastructure. And there's a whole bunch of things in there. We're talking significant amounts of money. And I would say that basically anything that can be reasonably considered to be an investment in the future, it's okay to finance with deficits, real interest costs for the US are very, very low-interest rate is below the growth rate of the economy there. You've got people like Olivier Blanchard and Lawrence Summers saying that deficit fears have been vastly overblown. I think we're in a situation where we shouldn't be worrying much about deficits. However, that doesn't mean that you can completely blow it away. And so pieces of that program that would require sustained spending, and are really more about social justice than about crime law stuff, that's both investment and social justice. But there's also a fair bit of stuff. That's just social justice. And I would say that you want to pay for the social justice parts by higher taxes on the rich. So that the two do go in conjunction, I would say both some increase in or better-targeted deficit spending, because we're doing a lot of deficit spending right now. But if it were running deficits, to pay for stock buybacks, but the but a combination of deficit spending on investment, and taxing the wealthy to pay for social programs is the way I would go?
Unknown Speaker 1:52
Will you talk about the intersection of trade and corporate taxes and tax avoidance, it seems like we are in an endless game of whack a mole with a very inadequate hammer. And I want to understand what the whole picture needs to look like if you could design it.
Unknown Speaker 2:11
okay, the corporate tax avoidance by profit shifting to tax havens, is a significant thing. Although, it's not 100%. Because if the ability to globalize where profits are reported was Unlimited, then we wouldn't have seen a decline in corporate tax receipts after the Trump tax cut. So obviously, corporate taxes were collecting a significant amount of money despite all of that. But to the extent, it is an issue. Look, it's a handful of small countries where this stuff is being where profits are realized we're really talking, Ireland, Luxembourg. And then the financial industry is the British Virgin Islands, that sort of thing. The major economies have got plenty of leverage to force those tax havens to shut down. If had a coordinated move on the part of the G7 to say this, this must stop. It would, it would not be at all hard to do it. So you just need an agreement. You need to have progressive governments and enough of the major economies, actually to a large extent, I think basically, if the British and ourselves away, I think the Germans and the French would go along. We're to say we're going to have a crackdown on the tax havens that would do it. Even starting to move a little bit in that direction. So, it's one of those problems that is not hard. Technically, it's a political thing. If widespread tax avoidance through international tax havens persists. It's because interest groups within the advanced countries want them to persist. And the moment we decide that's not going to happen, it will stop happening. It's just, an easy problem to solve with the right leadership
Did you pass?
DeleteJust passed,here you go! :)
ReplyDeleteyou talked about the response to the financial crisis, and perhaps not enough deficit spending as a response. My question is, are deficit spending and increased taxes on the rich tools that should be used in conjunction? Could you talk about their applications and their uses together or alone?
Okay, let me give you... I've been trying to figure out how should we pay for a progressive agenda. Put it that way. There's a bunch of things we should be doing, we should be clearly spending quite a lot more, especially on children, and we need to be spending on infrastructure, and there's a whole bunch of things. We're talking significant amounts of money, and I would say that basically anything that can be reasonably considered to be an investment in the future, it's okay to finance with deficits. Real interest costs for the US are very, very low. Interest rate is below the growth rate of the economy. You've got people like Olivier Blanchard and Larry Summers saying that deficit fears have been vastly overblown. I think we are in a situation where we shouldn't be worrying much about deficits. However, that doesn't mean that you can completely blow it away. And so pieces of that program that would require sustained spending and are really more about social justice than about crime law stuff, that's both investment and social justice. But there's also a fair bit of stuff, that's just social justice. And I would say that you want to pay for the social justice parts by higher taxes on the rich. So that the two go in conjunction, I would say both some increase in or better-targeted deficit spending, because we're doing a lot of deficit spending right now, but if it were running deficits, to pay for stock buybacks, but a combination of deficit spending on investment, and taxing the wealthy to pay for social programs is the way I would go.
Will you talked about the intersection of trade and corporate taxes and tax avoidance? It seems like we are in an endless game of whack a mole with a very inadequate hammer. And I want to understand what the whole picture needs to look like if you could design it.
Okay, corporate tax avoidance by profit shifting to tax havens, is a significant thing, although, it's not a 100%. Because if the ability to globalize where profits are reported was unlimited, then we wouldn't have seen a decline in corporate tax receipts after the Trump tax cut. So obviously, corporate taxes were collecting a significant amount of money despite all of that. But to the extent, it is an issue. Look, it's a handful of small countries where this stuff is being, where profits are realized. We' really are talking, Ireland, Luxembourg, and then the financial industry is the British Virgin Islands, that sort of thing. The major economies have got plenty of leverage to force those tax havens to shut down. If we had a coordinated move on the part of the G7 to say this must stop. it would not be at all hard to do it. So you just need an agreement. You need to have progressive governments and enough of the major economies, actually to a large extent. I think basically, if the British and ourselves , I think the Germans and the French would go along, were to say we're going to have a crackdown on the tax havens that would do it. Even starting to move a little bit in that direction. So, it's one of those problems that is not hard technically, it's a political thing. If widespread tax avoidance through international tax havens persists, it's because interest groups within the advanced countries want them to persist. And the moment we decide that's not going to happen it will stop happening, It's just an easy problem to solve with the right leadership
hey did you pass the financial crises one
ReplyDelete