Още някой който мисли като мен че евро ук бюрократите го обърнаха на съветски апартачици
и вероятно ще фалират като тях
Borrowing or printing money to pay for imported energy (in dollars), while running rising twin deficits is a great way to destroy one’s currency – which means ‘Truss-itory’ inflation, not transitory. So, we must then ration by diktat: but how?
- By sector: households or industry? Households freeze and vote. But industry employs households – or doesn’t. (As California tells its drivers who bought EVs to go green that they can’t now charge them because of grid power shortages.)
- By industrial energy intensity and shut the ‘sinners’ down? But that ignores the value-chain impact on GDP and employment (i.e., no x, then no y, and if no y, so no z, etc.)
- By industry in terms of external realpolitik, i.e., the sectors that produce defence-related goods come first?
- By industry in terms of internal realpolitik? i.e., the sectors that employ the most people come first?
- By industry for equity? i.,e., all sectors take the same cuts so there can be no favouritism, even if this is totally inefficient?
These are the kind of questions Soviet planned economies asked daily – and got wrong because they had no pricing mechanisms, interest rates, fully-fungible money, external trade, or business/consumer feedback mechanisms like the media or elections. And they all wanted to arm themselves to the teeth for the struggle against US imperialism of course.
This is not a joke.. This is not a blast from the past. This is not an abstract exercise. This is a thought process undoubtedly already underway at the highest levels of some governments, or which I hope to goodness already is. As I have alluded to before, I also hope someone from the army engineers is nearby to help steer the discussion away from the silliness of traditional economics and GDP by demand and towards a national security focused GDP
by supply.
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
====
Относно статията в Сега - седя и се чудя как са успели да разберат точно обратното на това което казва статията до която са сложили линк - това е линка от статията в Сега
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...buying-70-billion-in-yuan-friendly-currencies
В него се казва точно обратното - не Русия иска да си вземе 70 милиарда инвестиции Русия иска да направи нови 70 милиарда като по този начин ще отслаби рублата към юана и през крос курса сътоветно към евро и към долар без централната банка да прави интервенция в тях.
But in the short term, with earnings from exports of oil and gas flooding in and driving the current account surplus to a record this year and pushing the ruble higher, the proposal calls for spending 4.4 trillion rubles ($70 billion) to
buy the currencies of “friendly” countries, mostly yuan.
Виж файлът 25559
Natalia Lavrova, chief economist at BCS Financial Group in Moscow, said $70 billion in purchases could push the ruble to 75-80 per dollar from current levels around 60.
Вероятно за да инвестираш сума която е около полови процент от GDP на страната се иска разрешение и от там са се подвели Сега или на преводача много му се е искало да русия да губи войната и китай да ги реже и затова да е превел точно на обратно
Другите неща няма да ги коментирам защото са точно на обратно на каквото гледам - просто ще изчакаме няколко седмици да ви мине хайпа от пропагандата .