En algun momento pense en escribir por que no acelerar el despliegue en Vaca Muerta y las consecuencias de hacerlo o no.
Pero, aparecio Guyana, que, me refuerza la idea, al final, parafraseando, los hidrocarburos son demasiado valiosos para quemarlos o exportarlos asi nomas.
Will Guyana soon be the richest country in the world?
South America's second poorest nation is bracing for an oil boom that could catapult it to the top of the continent's rich list - and beyond. But can Guyana avoid the so-called oil curse and ensure that its newfound riches benefit all Guyanese?
"Many people still do not get how big this is," then-US Ambassador to Guyana Perry Holloway told a reception in the capital, Georgetown, last November.
"Come 2025, GDP will go up by 300% to 1,000%. This is gigantic. You will be the richest country in the hemisphere and potentially the richest country in the world."
It may sound far-fetched, but with a population of around 750,000, in per capita terms, Guyana's wealth is set to skyrocket. ExxonMobil, the main operator in Guyana, says it has discovered more than 5.5 billion barrels' worth of oil beneath the country's waters in the Atlantic Ocean.
'Oil curse'
The money would certainly be welcome. This former British colony - the only English-speaking country in South America - has high rates of unemployment and poverty.
But history carries a warning for Guyana. The discovery of big oil in other developing nations has exacerbated existing corruption, leading to the new oil wealth being squandered and stolen. It has become known as the oil curse.
In Guyana, "corruption is rampant," says Troy Thomas, the head of the local chapter of global anti-corruption NGO Transparency International. He says he is "very worried" about the oil curse. A political crisis in recent months has been seen by some as an early sign of the curse's effects.
Lo estoy leyendo, interesante y la prosa divertida, pero es un robo, voy por la mitad y ya se desarma, es la ultima vez que compro algo de editorial argentina.
China hits back with tariffs on $60bn of US goods
Country says move is response to ‘US unilateralism and trade protectionism’
China has hit back at the US, announcing on Monday that it would raise tariffs on $60bn worth of US goods after the Trump administration pushed ahead with new punitive duties on Chinese goods on Friday.
Beijing said on Monday that it would raise tariffs on those goods to between 10 per cent and 25 per cent starting on June 1.
“China’s adjustment of tariff-adding measures is a response to US unilateralism and trade protectionism,” said China’s Ministry of Finance in a statement.
The fresh escalation in the tit-for-tat tariff battle that has built up over the past year further eroded hopes of a quick resolution to US-China trade discussions and sent US stock futures deeper into the red. S&P 500 futures were down 2 per cent while Treasury prices extended their rally, pushing yields lower. Yield on the benchmark 10 year note was down 3.6 basis points at 2.4174 per cent.
The response from Beijing comes just three days after the White House more than doubled its levies on $200bn of Chinese goods to 25 per cent. The Trump administration has threatened to hit a further $300bn of Chinese imports with the 25 per cent tariff rate if there is no progress in trade negotiations.
In response, China’s finance ministry said on Monday the tariff increase by the US “violates” the agreement between the two countries to resolve their trade differences through talks.
“In order to defend the multilateral trading system and defend its legitimate rights and interests, China has to adjust tariffs on some imported goods originating in the United States,” it added.
Earlier on Monday, President Donald Trump warned Beijing not to retaliate against the rise in tariffs his administration pushed through last week and said China would be “hurt very badly” if it does not agree to a trade deal
Por? mas que nada por gusto, probablemente a esta altura nadie excepto yo lea aca, pero, me harte de twitter, el pavorealismo pudo mas que yo.
Quizas sea que no formo parte del star system, bah, guien so yo basicamente
Era interesante? si, pero el si bwanismo no interesa, asi que seguire leyendo y copiando aca lo interesante, es notable com en twitter ocurre el mismo fenomeno (y no es nada nuevo) que en los blogs, unos se leen a otros y se celebran entre si, y, estan los populares como en cierta novela de los 90s y asi
Erase un pais donde lo tecnico en diversos lugares se respetaba, luego, para tener trabajo algun partido politico necesito que quienes estaban en un lugar tecnico estuvieran comprometidos con el proyecto, y asi se reintrodujo en ese pais el spoil system.
Ni Peron lo echo a Borges, lo mando a cumplir su funcion para la cual fue nombrado, pero, ay, este gobierno anterior necesitaba acolitos,
Ahora, los acolitos se quejan, antes decian, si no sos del proyecto no podes estar aca, que lastima, los echan
definciones
En ciencia política, la expresión inglesa spoils system (en castellano "clientelismo") (spoils significa en inglés "botín") describe una práctica por la cual los partidos políticos del gobierno distribuyen entre sus propios militantes y simpatizantes cargos institucionales y posiciones de poder. Si bien la línea general de este comportamiento político tiene sus bases en el sistema de clientelismo político,
la expresión spoils system no implica primeramente una connotación
negativa, a saber que tal distribución de cargos sea necesariamente
abusiva. En otras palabras, se trata de una expresión moralmente neutra
que describe una práctica formalmente reconocida y abiertamente
aplicada, en determinados periodos históricos, tanto en los Estados Unidos
como en otros países. Este sistema tiene como principal característica,
no vincular al personal en forma permanente. El origen del término
deriva de la frase "to the victor go the spoils" ("al vencedor va el botín"), acuñada a inicios del siglo XIX
en el noreste norteamericano. En Estados Unidos el spoils system deja
de existir con la Ley Pendleton de 1883(en honor a su principal promotor
el senador George Pendleton), lo que supone desde esa fecha, la
utilización de un sistema neutral basado en criterios de igualdad y de
mérito para acceder a un cargo público. En Gran Bretaña, unas decenios
antes con la Order in Council (Decreto Real) del 21 de mayo de 1855, se
aplasta el clientelismo al desarrollar procedimientos selectivos basados
en el principio del mérito.
