nafta
nafta
n/a ima li nekoj objasnuvanje na ovoj paradoks:cenata na naftata na svetskiot pazar(dokolku e svetski?)koja postojano raste i padot na cenata na parite so koi taa nafta se plaka?
OooOo Posledniot porast na cenata na naftata kako shto rekoa tuka na Jamajka e poradi ekonomskiot bum vo Kina i pobaruvachkata na nafta vo toj del na svetot.
achtung_panzer
quote:
Originally posted by torlakien
ima li nekoj objasnuvanje na ovoj paradoks:cenata na naftata na svetskiot pazar(dokolku e svetski?)koja postojano raste i padot na cenata na parite so koi taa nafta se plaka?
Objasnuvanjeto e mnogu ednostavno: cenata na naftata postojano kje raste zashto pobaruvachkata e se' pogolema (duri i da se pumpa nafta so polna parea) a "cenata na parite" (verojatno referirash na kursot na dolarot) kje pagja zaradi masivniot amerikanski deficit no i zaradi pregolemata zavisnost na izvesni ekonomii od pobaruvachkata na amerikanskiot pazar. Visokata cena na naftata i ne mora da bide taka losha rabota: mozhebi parite kje gi natera naciite niz svetot konechno da gi pocheshaat glavite okolu naogjanjeto substituti za fosilnite goriva, ako vekje zagaduvanjeto ne e dovolna motivacija za mozganje...
Strelec
quote:
Originally posted by achtung_panzer
...mozhebi parite kje gi natera naciite niz svetot konechno da gi pocheshaat glavite okolu naogjanjeto substituti za fosilnite goriva, ako vekje zagaduvanjeto ne e dovolna motivacija za mozganje...
Óìíî!
n/a vo red e ako toa poskapuvanje se dolzi na zgolemenata pobaruvacka ,toa sepak znaci normalna pojava na pazarot,no dali i severnoamerikancite plakaat priblizno 1$ za litar dizel?
OooOo
quote:
Originally posted by torlakien
vo red e ako toa poskapuvanje se dolzi na zgolemenata pobaruvacka ,toa sepak znaci normalna pojava na pazarot,no dali i severnoamerikancite plakaat priblizno 1$ za litar dizel?
NE! Severna Amerika (potochno US) od sekogash imala najevtin benzin vo svet, dodeka Evropa imala najskap benzin. Momentalno vo Amerika 1 Galon (3.8 litri) dizel e odprilika $2.20, a vo Canada 1 litar dizel e $0.75
Strelec ÎîîÎî, êîëêó å öåíàòà íà äèçåëîò íà £àìà¼êà?
n/a paradoksot e vo toa sto i pokraj(namernata)devalvacija na US$ amerikancite uspevaat da zadrzat stabilna cena na naftata na svojot pazar.neveruvam deka toa se dolzi na nivnite rezervi tuku mislam deka razlikata vo cenata ja plaka ostanatiot svet vklucuvajki ne i nas.vo taa razlika e vkalkulirana i vojnata za naftenite naogalista nasekade vo svetot i koi resursi perfidno gi kontrolira USA.fakticki nie ja plakame amerikanskata avantura vo irak i nasekade naokulu kade se stitat interesite na amerikanskiot narod.nivnata blagosostojba ja plaka sekoj od nas koj ne mu pripaga na taa "blagorodena populacija"
OooOo
quote:
Originally posted by Strelec
ÎîîÎî, êîëêó å öåíàòà íà äèçåëîò íà £àìà¼êà?
Pa eden litar e okolu $60 Jamaica Dollars ($65 Jamaica Dollars = $1 USD)
n/a Od koga geo-strategija = zagovor??? SAD go osvojuvaat vojno ona sto ekonomski ne mozat da go postignat. Se sto rece e tocno od ekonomska gledna tocka (na pr. pobaruvackata na nafta se zgolemuva), no ima i geo-staretska pozadina/dobivka. So napadot na Irak, SAD postignuva barem 3 celi: (1)forward projection of power -- konkretno kon Iran, Saudi Arabija (cija dinastija se klati pod naletite na islamskite fundamentalisti), no najvazna e moznosta za podocnezna izolacija na Kina (koja pak e kontri-instalirana vo Venecuela, Sudan i delumno Meksiko - drugite izvori na nafta, pa zatoa slusame kakvi "politicki" problemi ima tamu, neli); (2) kontrola nad 2-rite po golemina izvori na nafta, no moznost za pritisok na 3tite po golemina vo Iran; (3)vlijanie vrz tekovite na nafta i gas vo svoja polza preku treti drzavi Avganistan, Kazahstan itd. Tocno, SAD ima svoi energetski izvori, no isto kako i vojnata sila, dlaboko gi cuva vo pozadinata. A sto mislis, zosto dolarot e devalviran? So osigurena dodatna infuzija na nafta, i so devalvirana valuta, SAD kje imaat mnogu pogolem izvoz, dodeka evroto navidum e pojako, no zatoa pak EU gi apsorbira ekonomskite pritisoci. Plus, EU e PREMNOGU energetski zavisna od Rusija i site drui izvori, pa cenata na chinenje tamu doprva kje se zgolemuva, zaedno so nevrabotenosta. Zamisli cija otskocna daska ili protektorat kje bide EU za 10tina godini? I kazi toj sto dobiva vo situacijava e kako rezultat na toa zagovor ili strateski rezon? Pogledni ja moznata reakcija na EU: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0224/dailyUpdate.html I vojno-politicka: http://csis.org/hill/ts050316gill.pdf
achtung_panzer [:D][:D] Daj pivo dete, i pishi ushe eden rabush u toa tefterot zadruzhen... Prvo e "ekonomskata gledna tochka", seto drugo ("geostrategiski previranja", dvoboj megju "supersilite" itn.) e materijal za nadvoreshno-politichki emisii so Safet Bishevac (ili koj drug vekje vi e preferiran)i e chisto nagagjanje... Mozhnata reakcija na EU?! Zarem EU kje reagira?! Sho taka im teknalo? EU kje igra kako sho kje i' zasvirat, silni se samo vrz zemjite od bivshiot istochen blok shto se palat na chlenstvo vo unijata/NATO kako selski momi na igranka... I taka vikash znachi, toa bile celite na Trulata i Zla Imperija vo Irak... ete gledash, ne znaev...[xx(][:o)] a mislev raspravame za cenata na naftata i zoshto taa raste... Oh da, devalvirana valuta znachi i pomala kupovna mokj, pogolema nevrabotenost, poskap uvoz... ili mozhebi toa ne ja zasegalo Trulata Imperija vo pohodot po kontrola vrz svetot... ustvari pa ima tuka "eksperti", kje razjasnat toa od geopolitichki plan, shto se macham jas... Navivam za se' pogolema cena na naftata, navivam za cena shto nikoj ne bi mozhel da ja plati. Navivam za cena na naftata shto bi gi nateralo lugjeto da zalozhat se' shto imaat za da stavat gorivo vo kolata, zashto mozhebi taka nekomu kje mu tekne da izleze so alternativa na fosilnite goriva... ako vekje ne zaradi zagaduvanjeto, togash zaradi parite (kolku i da e perfidno) kje se smisli izlez od predstoechkiot energetski krah...
AaaAa E i u ovaa oblast denes biser iskoci Senate Votes to Allow Drilling in Arctic Reserve By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON, March 16 - The Senate endorsed oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today, giving President Bush and others who favor exploration of the Alaska wilderness a major victory. The 51-to-49 vote was in favor of a budget resolution that assumes revenues of some $5 billion from drilling fees over the next decade, with the federal government and the state of Alaska to split the money. While this afternoon's vote is not the final word on the issue, it nevertheless made drilling in the wilds of Alaska - an idea favored by the oil industry for decades and fiercely opposed by environmental groups - far more likely than before. For drilling to take place, the Senate will later have to pass a measure explicitly authorizing the opening of the wildlife refuge to drilling, something that until now has been prohibited. Then the House of Representatives would have to explicitly authorize drilling as well. Since the House has endorsed Arctic drilling several times over the years, this afternoon's vote in the Senate was seen by vote-watchers on both sides as perhaps pivotal. In the Senate, opponents of drilling have used the chamber's parliamentary devices - notably, the threat of a filibuster, a stalling tactic that requires 60 of the Senate's 100 votes to overcome - to frustrate supporters. This afternoon's vote came on an amendment sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington and several other Democrats. It would have removed language in the budget resolution for 2006 that assumes that drilling will take place. "We won't see this oil for 10 years," Senator Cantwell said. "It will have minimal impact." But Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who supports drilling, said opening up the refuge would be sensible policy. "The price of oil just jumped up to 56 bucks a barrel this morning," she noted minutes before the vote. The closeness of this afternoon's vote could be a prelude to bitter debate ahead. President Bush and many Republicans say drilling in the refuge would help make the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil. Opponents, who include most Democrats and some Republican moderates, contend that drilling in the refuge would endanger one of the last unspoiled regions of wilderness in North America, and that in the long run it would not be the answer to America's energy problems. The debate focuses on about 1.5 million acres of coastal plain within the 19-million acre refuge. Oil industry representatives have said that drilling would be confined to only about 2,000 acres within the 1.5 million acres, and that it can be done with a minimum of environmental damage. Among those voting against the drilling proposal today was Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, whom President Bush defeated in November. He called the vote "a Republican sneak attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders" and said he would continue to fight against the proposal. "This is more than a battle over the wildlife refuge," Mr. Kerry said in a statement. "It's a battle over two very different visions of our energy future. The president has a plan to sell off our public lands to the special interests that his own scientists and economists admit will not make us less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices at the pump." A decade ago, President Bill Clinton vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have opened the wildlife refuge to exploration for oil. And two years ago, the Senate rejected a budget provision to authorize drilling in the refuge by a vote of 52 to 48. But Republicans picked up four seats in last November's elections, bringing their total in the Senate to 55 and giving drilling advocates hope that they might finally prevail. Three Democratic senators, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, both of Hawaii, joined 48 Republicans in endorsing drilling today. Seven Republicans joined 41 Democrats and Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, in opposing it. Those seven were John S. McCain of Arizona, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine.
n/a
quote:
paradoksot e vo toa sto i pokraj(namernata)devalvacija na US$ amerikancite uspevaat da zadrzat stabilna cena na naftata na svojot pazar. neveruvam deka toa se dolzi na nivnite rezervi tuku mislam deka razlikata vo cenata ja plaka ostanatiot svet vklucuvajki ne i nas. vo taa razlika e vkalkulirana i vojnata za naftenite naogalista nasekade vo svetot i koi resursi perfidno gi kontrolira USA. fakticki nie ja plakame amerikanskata avantura vo irak i nasekade naokulu kade se stitat interesite na amerikanskiot narod. nivnata blagosostojba ja plaka sekoj od nas koj ne mu pripaga na taa "blagorodena populacija"
Bravo za objasnuvanjeto! I voopsto ne se raboti za paradoks tuku za geo-strategija od koja edna komponenta e energetskata. Navistina nema nisto novo vo situacijava -- taka bilo porano za vremeto na Rim, potoa Turcite, Britancite, Hitler, itn., taka e i sega. Zaboravi uste da dodades, se raboti za piramidalen sistem vo koj ne samo ja plakjate tuku i dobivate vo zavisnost od toa koj kade e srepma vrvot na piramidata koj go drzi SAD. Toa se obiduvav da mu go ukazam porano na Strelec za Kanada.[;)] Pozdrav.
achtung_panzer Teoriite za geostrategiski zagovori kako ushte eden biser vo riznicata na humorot i satirata... Osven toa shto "ima kontrola" vrz naftenite resursi nadvor, Amerika ima i sopstveni naogjalishta za nafta. Ako rekordniot deficit nema vlijanie vrz cenata na dolarot, togash shto li ima... veshtachki go spushtile dolarot?[:o)] I da, da ne bidat zaboraveni moreto danoci shto se nakacheni vrz naftenite derivati i nekogash vo zbir znaat da ja nadminat bruto cenata na samiot derivat... Fakt: pobaruvachkata po nafta postojano raste; Fakt: svetskite naftenite zalihi se ogranicheni; I se izvinuvam shto vi kvaram filmadzhiskata zabavata pod naslov "zlata Imperija kova zagovori"... Pozdrav
ProMKD Kako da ne ni bese dovolno USA da pie nafta kako kamila, sega se razviva kina i ke pocne masovno da uvezuva nafta za gorivo. A OPEC drzavite redovno go smaluvaat izvozot na nafta za da se "stabilizira" pazarot, odnosno da ja zgolemat cenata