Global Events & Politics Überthread
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I mean the queen has done this too. English Monarchy is known for daftness.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
they are a parasitic class
the french had the right idea of what to do with their royal family
He's as stupid as a dem it seems.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
A former Chinese ambassador to Ukraine has delivered an unusually critical assessment of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that recognized the clear signs of defeat for Russian troops and the threat of President Vladimir Putin’s empire-building agenda for European security.
In remarks delivered to an internal forum at the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Gao Yusheng, who served in Ukraine from 2005 to 2007, described the Russian war effort as headed toward defeat, undermined by the failures of Putin’s economic, military and political policies.
“Every day the war continues to extract a heavy cost on Russia,” he said, according to a report of his remarks in Hong Kong-based Phoenix media published on Tuesday. The report disappeared shortly afterward.
Not only is Russia on the back foot on the battlefield, it is also losing the economic, diplomatic and publicity fight, meaning that “it is only a matter of time before Russia is ultimately defeated,” Gao said, according to an archived version of the article.
While Gao’s description of events in Ukraine would be unsurprising if delivered elsewhere, the 75-year-old diplomat’s account is a rare departure from China’s usual position of not criticizing its close diplomatic partner.
China claims it doesn’t take sides in the conflict, but it refuses to call the military assault an invasion and has held the United States and NATO primarily responsible for the outbreak of hostilities.
Gao, however, said Putin’s desire to dominate the region of the former Soviet Union had led to Russia “repeatedly infringing upon others’ territory and sovereignty. This is the greatest threat to Eurasia’s peace, security and stability.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/12/russia-ukraine-war-news-live-updates/
In remarks delivered to an internal forum at the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Gao Yusheng, who served in Ukraine from 2005 to 2007, described the Russian war effort as headed toward defeat, undermined by the failures of Putin’s economic, military and political policies.
“Every day the war continues to extract a heavy cost on Russia,” he said, according to a report of his remarks in Hong Kong-based Phoenix media published on Tuesday. The report disappeared shortly afterward.
Not only is Russia on the back foot on the battlefield, it is also losing the economic, diplomatic and publicity fight, meaning that “it is only a matter of time before Russia is ultimately defeated,” Gao said, according to an archived version of the article.
While Gao’s description of events in Ukraine would be unsurprising if delivered elsewhere, the 75-year-old diplomat’s account is a rare departure from China’s usual position of not criticizing its close diplomatic partner.
China claims it doesn’t take sides in the conflict, but it refuses to call the military assault an invasion and has held the United States and NATO primarily responsible for the outbreak of hostilities.
Gao, however, said Putin’s desire to dominate the region of the former Soviet Union had led to Russia “repeatedly infringing upon others’ territory and sovereignty. This is the greatest threat to Eurasia’s peace, security and stability.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/12/russia-ukraine-war-news-live-updates/
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Man, who could foresee that invading a country for no reason and murdering civilians and raping the women and children could lead other countries to go “yeah, **** those people. Can we join your alliance in case these losers try to expand their war?”
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
truly a mystery
remember when Russia propped up their currency… and people said they were winning.
but first Russia must cut the head off of the Neo-Nazi snake.
And round up the drug addicts
sturg33
I
Nah we find those
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The case for a large tax rather than an embargo on Russian oil.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ax-on-russian-oil-by-ricardo-hausmann-2022-02
At issue is something called tax incidence analysis, which is taught in basic microeconomics courses. A tax on a good, such as Russian oil, will affect both supply and demand, changing the good’s price. How much the price changes, and who bears the cost of the tax, depends on how sensitive both supply and demand are to the tax, or what economists call elasticity. The more elastic the demand, the more the producer bears the cost of the tax because consumers have more options. The more inelastic the supply, the more the producer – again – bears the tax, because it has fewer options.
Fortunately, this is precisely the situation the West now confronts. Demand for Russian oil is highly elastic, because consumers do not really care if the oil they use comes from Russia, the Gulf, or somewhere else. They are unwilling to pay more for Russian oil if other oil with similar properties is available. Hence, the price of Russian oil after tax is pinned down by the market price of all other oil.
At the same time, the supply of Russian oil is very inelastic, meaning that large changes in the price to the producer do not induce changes in supply. Here, the numbers are staggering. According to the Russian energy group Rosneft’s financial statements for 2021, the firm’s upstream operating costs are $2.70 per barrel. Likewise, Rystad Energy, a business-intelligence company, estimates the total variable cost of production of Russian oil (excluding taxes and capital costs) at $5.67 per barrel.
Put differently, even if the oil price fell to $6 per barrel (it’s above $100 now), it would still be in Rosneft’s interest to keep pumping: Supply is truly inelastic in the short run. Obviously, under those conditions, it would not be profitable to invest in maintaining or expanding production capacity, and oil output would gradually decline – as it always does because of depletion and loss of reservoir pressure. But this will take time, and by then, others may move in to take over Russia’s market share.
In other words, given very high demand elasticity and very low short-term supply elasticity, a tax on Russian oil would be paid essentially by Russia. Instead of being costly for the world, imposing such a tax would actually be profitable. A punitive global tax on Russian oil – at a rate of, say, 90%, or $90 per barrel – could extract and transfer to the world some $300 billion per year from Putin’s war chest, or about 20% of Russia’s 2021 GDP. And it would be infinitely more convenient than an embargo on Russian oil, which would enrich other producers and impoverish consumers.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ax-on-russian-oil-by-ricardo-hausmann-2022-02
At issue is something called tax incidence analysis, which is taught in basic microeconomics courses. A tax on a good, such as Russian oil, will affect both supply and demand, changing the good’s price. How much the price changes, and who bears the cost of the tax, depends on how sensitive both supply and demand are to the tax, or what economists call elasticity. The more elastic the demand, the more the producer bears the cost of the tax because consumers have more options. The more inelastic the supply, the more the producer – again – bears the tax, because it has fewer options.
Fortunately, this is precisely the situation the West now confronts. Demand for Russian oil is highly elastic, because consumers do not really care if the oil they use comes from Russia, the Gulf, or somewhere else. They are unwilling to pay more for Russian oil if other oil with similar properties is available. Hence, the price of Russian oil after tax is pinned down by the market price of all other oil.
At the same time, the supply of Russian oil is very inelastic, meaning that large changes in the price to the producer do not induce changes in supply. Here, the numbers are staggering. According to the Russian energy group Rosneft’s financial statements for 2021, the firm’s upstream operating costs are $2.70 per barrel. Likewise, Rystad Energy, a business-intelligence company, estimates the total variable cost of production of Russian oil (excluding taxes and capital costs) at $5.67 per barrel.
Put differently, even if the oil price fell to $6 per barrel (it’s above $100 now), it would still be in Rosneft’s interest to keep pumping: Supply is truly inelastic in the short run. Obviously, under those conditions, it would not be profitable to invest in maintaining or expanding production capacity, and oil output would gradually decline – as it always does because of depletion and loss of reservoir pressure. But this will take time, and by then, others may move in to take over Russia’s market share.
In other words, given very high demand elasticity and very low short-term supply elasticity, a tax on Russian oil would be paid essentially by Russia. Instead of being costly for the world, imposing such a tax would actually be profitable. A punitive global tax on Russian oil – at a rate of, say, 90%, or $90 per barrel – could extract and transfer to the world some $300 billion per year from Putin’s war chest, or about 20% of Russia’s 2021 GDP. And it would be infinitely more convenient than an embargo on Russian oil, which would enrich other producers and impoverish consumers.
Last edited: