Vesti iz ekonomje

паће wrote:Зар већ нису власници Трепче?

Ne znam, nema ništa u Vikipediji, a slabo pratim vesti. Nego, sve to skupa mi ne uliva poverenje.... http://www.corp-research.org/rio-tinto

A u tom kraju se nalazi kuća u kojoj ću se (možda) penzionisati (inshallah). Pa, da sačekam malo, možda je prodam rudarima za dobre pare i odem umesto toga negde na Grečesko more... Mislim, fantaziram, ali nema veze.

паће wrote:

Indy wrote:Super, sad kad Rio Tinto dođe i sve zasere...

Зар већ нису власници Трепче?

Bakar u istocnoj Srbiji. Tamo su prisutni na isptiivanjima.

Sto se tice Kosova, ono je, pre svega, prebogato lignitom. Procene se krecu izmedju 10-20 milijardi metrickih tona, sto je ogromno.
Rekao bih u prvih 10-15 rezervi u svetu.

Nadam se da će tamo i ostati (lignit), mislim u zemlji. Međutim, kako su krenuli...

Trenutno ostaje jer korupcija na Kosovu onemogucava eksplataciju. Praktinco rezerve lignita u TE Obilic su nestale. Nesto je malo bolja situacija u EPS i Kolubari/Kostolcu ali je velika kradja prisutna. Centralna Srbija i nesto malo juzni Banat(Kovin i okolina) imaju isto dosta rezervi lignita. Rekao bih na danasnjoj potrosnji preko 100 godina bez Kosova, sa Kosovom mnogo duze. Ali zavisi od ulaganja a to je problem zbog velike kradje u EPS-u.
Lignit, kao i ostali ugalj, moze ekoloski cisto da se eksplatise kroz proizvodnju el. energije ali je trenutno ta tehnologija skupa.
Takodje, pretvranje uglja u naftu/gas je opcija, doduse isto skupa tehnologija ali Kinezi spustaju tu cenu.

Ne može ugalj da se ekološki čisto koristi. To ne postoji.

Clean coal technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology

Postoji na vikipediji, ali ne i u realnosti.

Uklanjanje ugljenika postoji, ali ne i "čisti ugalj". To su 2 različite tehnologije koje se često brkaju.

(S tim da ja nisam naročiti optimista ni u pogledu prvog, a drugo... nema ga.)

Evo npr. ovde piše baš o toj konfuziji: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-02/clean-coal-explained/8235210


EDIT. Ima i ovde o tim distinkcijama, iz pera eksperta: http://theconversation.com/the-clean-coal-row-shouldnt-distract-us-from-using-carbon-capture-for-other-industries-74170

Da se naša tzv civilizacija i dalje (skoro u celosti) zasniva na, praktično, prašumama zatrpanim pre 300 miliona godina... meni je prilično tugaljivo.

OK, cenim da ćemo jednom i to preležati, ali bilo bi zgodno da tu bude zato što umemo bolje, a ne zato što smo zatrpane prašume popalili u celini i celosti.

Jeftino i pouzdano za razliku od konkurencije.
Zapad koji je ceo svoj razvoj zasnovao na uglju sada trazi od onih koji se razvijaju da odbace ugalj.
OK
Neka oni prvi potpuno izbace ugalj jer su najbogatiji.

Will Germany Ever Phase Coal Out? Coal Still Accounts For 40% Of Energy Mix
August 2nd, 2017 by James Ayre
Despite more than €20 billion being spent on the country’s green energy sector every year, coal still accounts for around 40% of Germany’s energy mix — that represents an only ~10% drop since 2000, despite all of the money and PR since then.

Ok, jedno je pričati o novim rudnicima i eksploataciji novih nalazišta, a drugo je "odbacivanje uglja". Jasno je da će (i u bogatim zemljama) ugalj igrati ulogu u energetskom miksu još dugo vremena. (Na žalost, ali je tako.)

Inače, sa tom logikom ("neka to urade oni prvo") smo apsolutno na tragu kataklizme (u vreme generacije naše unučadi), tako da samozadovoljstvu nema mesta.

(Zanimljivo je da i ovde bogati kažu to isto, "neka prvo Kinezi i Indijci prestanu da upumpavaju gasove staklene bašte, šta smo mi u odnosu na njih..." Super će nam svima biti sa tom logikom, na čelu sa drugom Trampom, koji je ovaploćenje tog principa.)

opet, ako nemacka zatvori svoje rudnike najvise ce bez posla ostati bas oni iz tih zemalja u razvoju, mada to svakako jeste u planu. energije dobijene iz uglja u nemackoj je tek 10ak posto vise u odnosu na dobijenu iz ekoloskih i obnovljivih izvora.

The federal government adopted its Energiekonzept (energy plan) in October 2010. At this time, it assumed life extensions of German nuclear power plants up to the late 2030s. In 2011, after the Fukushima incident, it was decided to phase out nuclear power generation in Germany by the end of 2022. From the beginning, the focus has been on ambitious climate protection policies: a greenhouse gas emission reduction of 80% to 95% by 2050 with step-by-step objectives for each decade, including a 40% reduction by 2020 (compared with 1990); a massive increase in energy efficiency to yield total energy savings of 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050; and the steady development of renewables to a 60% share of final energy consumption and 80% of power consumption by 2050. Thus, Germany’s climate protection targets go beyond EU targets. In order to achieve the 2020 CO2-reduction target, the German government decided in 2015 to implement a “Climate Action Programme 2020” (Aktionsprogramm Klimaschutz 2020)). This includes specific measures for the electricity sector which will have a direct impact on the use of lignite and hard coal. In November 2016, the German federal government also agreed upon a “Climate Protection Plan 2050” (Klimaschutzplan 2050) which sets out strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 61% to 62% by 2030 compared with 1990. The plan was presented at the UNFCCC COP 22 meeting in Marrakesh and means a move away from EU-wide efforts towards national climate action. However, up to now, there are no concrete actions concerning coal.

U Nemackoj ugalj+gas cine preko 50% prozivodnje el.energije tzv. obnovljivi izvori negde oko 1/3 i taj rast obnovljivih izvora ide na uglavnom na racun nuklearne energije.
Energiewende ima dosta problema zato ugalj i opstaje.

Indy wrote:Ok, jedno je pričati o novim rudnicima i eksploataciji novih nalazišta, a drugo je "odbacivanje uglja". Jasno je da će (i u bogatim zemljama) ugalj igrati ulogu u energetskom miksu još dugo vremena. (Na žalost, ali je tako.)

Inače, sa tom logikom ("neka to urade oni prvo") smo apsolutno na tragu kataklizme (u vreme generacije naše unučadi), tako da samozadovoljstvu nema mesta.

(Zanimljivo je da i ovde bogati kažu to isto, "neka prvo Kinezi i Indijci prestanu da upumpavaju gasove staklene bašte, šta smo mi u odnosu na njih..." Super će nam svima biti sa tom logikom, na čelu sa drugom Trampom, koji je ovaploćenje tog principa.)

Logicno. Ti izvori energije su jeftini a pouzdani. Ko se odrekne pada u konkuretnosti, proizvodi i zivotni standard poskupljuju.

S druge strane, ko se prevashodno bude držao fosilnih goriva, gubi konkurentnosti u budućnosti (i to bez obzira šta bilo ko o tome mislio, pošto su zalihe svakako iscrpljive.)

Zuper wrote:U Nemackoj ugalj+gas cine preko 50% prozivodnje el.energije tzv. obnovljivi izvori negde oko 1/3 i taj rast obnovljivih izvora ide na uglavnom na racun nuklearne energije.
Energiewende ima dosta problema zato ugalj i opstaje.

logicno da ide vise na racun nuklearne jer su u fejz autu, zatvorili su pola nuklearki, a druga polovina je u planu u narednih nekoliko godina za gasenje. u tom smislu je i dobro sto na konto gasenja nuklearki rastu obnovljivi, a ne ugalj.

Diskriminacija robota...

Korea takes first step to introduce 'robot tax'


By Yoon Sung-won

Amid worldwide debate on the use of robots for work and possible consequent unemployment issues, the government made a first move that may help slow down automation in industries, according to sources, Monday.

In its recently announced tax law revision plan, the Moon Jae-in administration said it will downsize the tax deduction benefits that previous governments provided to enterprises for infrastructure investment aimed at boosting productivity.

Currently, enterprises that have invested in industry automation equipment are eligible for a corporate tax deduction. Companies can have part of their corporate tax ― between 3 percent and 7 percent of the investment ― deducted under the policy, with the rate varying by the size of their business.

This sunset policy was scheduled to expire at the end of the year. But the government suggested extending it to the end of 2019 while decreasing the deduction rate by up to 2 percentage points.

The original definition of a robot tax is to levy tax on the use of robots for industrial automation. With more advanced and high-powered robots introduced at workplaces, human workers will naturally lose their jobs. In the meantime, the government will need more funds for welfare programs amid the rising unemployment rate. The notion of a robot tax has been made to make up for the decreasing tax revenue on such a backdrop.

"Though it is not about a direct tax on robots, it can be interpreted as a similar kind of policy considering that both involve the same issue of industrial automation," an industry source said.

There is no country that has officially adopted a robot tax yet. But governments, economists and technology experts have continued to argue about the pros and cons of such a tax.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates is one of the well-known advocates of a robot tax. In an interview this February, he said governments should levy a tax on the use of robots in a goal to fund retraining of those who lose jobs and to slowdown automation.

"For a human worker who does $50,000 worth of work in a factory, the income is taxed," Gates said. "If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you'd think that we'd tax the robot at a similar level."

He also stressed that there are still many jobs that need human hands and minds and thus cannot be properly replaced by robots.

"What the world wants is to take this opportunity to make all the goods and services we have today, and free up labor, let us do a better job of reaching out to the elderly, having smaller class sizes, helping kids with special needs, all of those are things where human empathy and understanding are still very unique," he said. "We still deal with an immense shortage of people to help out there."

On the other hand, global organizations such as the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) have been strongly against the idea of collecting taxes on the use of robots, claiming the robot tax will undermine proper competition and technological innovation in the robotics sector.

Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers also opposed the idea of taxing robots, calling Gates' argument "profoundly misguided."

"A sufficiently high tax on robots would prevent them from being produced," he said.

In Europe, an argument for the introduction of a robot tax ignited last year when European Union lawmakers started work on a proposal to tax enterprises for their robots.

This February, however, the EU adopted a resolution that opposed the introduction of a robot tax, while officially categorizing an artificial intelligence robot as an "electronic person" with a personality.

Air Berlin Files for Insolvency After Etihad Withdraws Support

Air Berlin Plc filed for insolvency proceedings after main shareholder Etihad Airways PJSC withdrew its financial support.

Amazon Turns to Debt Markets to Fund Whole Foods Acquisition

By
Molly Smith
15. avgust 2017. 14:36 CEST 15. avgust 2017. 15:58 CEST

• Online giant is said to sell bonds for Whole Foods acquisition
  
• Deal should be ‘very well-received’ as Bezos shakes industry
  

Amazon.com Inc. is turning to the debt markets to fund the acquisition of Whole Foods Market Inc. and power Jeff Bezos’s planned conquest of the supermarket business. 
The e-commerce giant is approaching the market following mega bond deals from AT&T Inc. ($22.5 billion) and British American Tobacco Plc ($17.25 billion), and Moody’s Investors Service said this one could be as high as $16 billion. It also comes at a time when tech companies have been active debt issuers, including a debut offering from Tesla Inc. on Aug. 11, and Apple Inc. announced Tuesday its first Canadian-dollar debt sale.


----------------------

Here's why investors should look again into Amazon's cash from operations.
Months ago, several distributors (Amazon suppliers) in the UK complained about Amazon taking so much time to send them their payments. These distributors have been waiting for years for receiving payments from the biggest e-commerce company in the world, but still nothing happened. MusicBrainz, a non-profit UK firm, has been waiting since 2013 (!) to get its payments from Amazon.
While we believe that is a rare case (the three years thing, not the paying late one), it opens an un-answered question about why Amazon has one of the highest days payable outstanding in the industry, and to what degree that inflates its cash from operations, Amazon's most important metric?
What Amazon does?
Amazon takes advantage of its high turnover rate to push suppliers to wait more for their payments (you don't complain about being paid late when you sell your inventory quickly at a suitable price).
Amazon has a history of its ruthless negotiations with its suppliers (check here and here).
Just to make it clear, we are not attacking Amazon for doing such a thing. After all, that's simply an exchange of interests - most suppliers are willing to let Amazon pay late for the sake of selling their goods on a platform that has one of the highest turnover ratios. We just want to inform investors that the most important metric they are using to value Amazon is not as good as it seems.
What if Amazon pays suppliers earlier than it does? What implications that would have on its CFO?
For example, in Q3 2016, by postponing paying to the suppliers and paying business expenses, Amazon generated $4.48 billion in CFO.
However, if Amazon paid for its suppliers and its expenses directly after receiving money from its customers, and collecting its receivables during the quarter, Amazon's CFO would be just $2.37 billion, 47% lower.
How much of its free cash flow and cash from operations would have been?
With a capex of $1.84 billion, Amazon's FCF would have been only $530 million instead of the reported $2.64 billion. That is 80% lower.

------------------

4 ways Amazon’s ruthless practices are crushing local economies

Jeff Bezos has forged an empire by exploiting low-wage workers and extracting billions in government subsidies

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/27/4_ways_amazons_ruthless_practices_are_crushing_local_economies_partner/

-----------------------------------------

Central Banks Need to End QE for the Sake of Markets

Plemenita misao, ali QE se radi zbog vlada, a ne potreba tržišta