No forse non avete ben chiaro degli interessi mondiali nell'Egitto. Stiamo parlando del canale di Suez, dove per il suo controllo si è già scatenata una guerra. Chiunque ne garantisca l'uso sicuro alle nazioni "occidentali" potrà stare al potere con il benestare di tutto l'occidente, che il governo sia democratico o che sia un regime militare.
E' triste e brutto dirlo, ma è con quest'ottica che bisogna guardare l'Egitto
Spoiler
Le agenzie di rating. No, parliamone. Da dove cazzo sono uscite? Chi gli ha concesso tutto questo potere?Intanto Moody’s e S&P, e come pensare che si sarebbero lasciate scappare l’occasione, hanno acceso il faro rosso sul Cairo, già bersagliato di
downgrading fino al livello di CCC+, a un passo dal minimo. E, per finire, l’Ocse ha peggiorato la sua categoria di rischio a 6/7.
Un paese in piena rivoluzione, dove ovviamente quelli che pagano sono sempre i soliti, i poveracci, e questi si buttano come avvoltoi a declassarlo e dichiararne la morte economica. Il mondo è in pugno non a un dittatore, non a un imperatore, non a skynet. Alle agenzie di rating.
Spoiler
bhe oddio, io ora in egitto e in turchia non ci verserei un euro.Originally Posted by Randolk
Le agenzie di rating. No, parliamone. Da dove cazzo sono uscite? Chi gli ha concesso tutto questo potere?
Un paese in piena rivoluzione, dove ovviamente quelli che pagano sono sempre i soliti, i poveracci, e questi si buttano come avvoltoi a declassarlo e dichiararne la morte economica. Il mondo è in pugno non a un dittatore, non a un imperatore, non a skynet. Alle agenzie di rating.
E ricordate che proprio egitto e turchia erano dati come paesi ottimi per investire, anche su questo forum molti consigliavano di comprarsi obbligazioni li, in quanto ad alto rendimento e a basso rischio (secondo loro). Invece...
hdr.
bnet profile
bhè finche in egitto c'era un regime che andava bene all'occidente.................pensi veramente che decide il popolo in egitto?
guarda per me in molti casi è meglio che il popolo non decida, ma non solo in egitto, anche in italia
hdr.
bnet profile
io aspetto ancora di vedere come va a finire in siria, perchè li si che veramente siamo alle comiche per quanto ci piglian per il culo i governatni del mondo"civilizzato"guarda per me in molti casi è meglio che il popolo non decida, ma non solo in egitto, anche in italia
in siria è scemi vs scemi, non ne può uscire nulla di buono in entrambi i casi.
hdr.
bnet profile
Stupri al Cairo... no dico ci siete mai stati? 18 milioni di abitanti... ma pensate di riuscire a tenerli a bada con un po di soldati? L'esercito ha azzerato il governo, bene, o forse male, ma non ha minimamente i mezzi per poter mantenere l'ordine in un paese dove già l'ordine non esiste.
Il Cairo non è il mar rosso coi villaggetti e le cittadine grosse quanto mezzo quartiere di milano... si sono cacciati in un bel vespaio, vediamo come se ne usciranno.
DaocSpoiler
Egypt: The Petrodollar’s Latest Battleground
By Marin Katusa
About a year ago, on June 30, 2012, Mohamed Morsi took his oath of office to become the first democratically elected president in Egypt. Though barely eking out a victory over Ahmed Shafik with 51.7% of the vote, Morsi acted as if he and his Muslim Brotherhood allies had a clear mandate from the people to rule as they wished. The troubles began brewing back in November of last year, when Morsi decreed that all decisions he made since June of that year are not subject to appeal of any other authority. As we mentioned in a past Casey Daily Dispatch, he essentially showed democracy the middle finger and was poised to establish himself as the next dictator of Egypt.
He might have succeeded in doing so, however, if it was not for the fact that he managed to anger his army with some reckless statements—possible Egyptian participation in the overthrow of Syrian leader al-Assad being one of many. To say that he mismanaged the economy would also be an understatement, as he was unable to make most of the reforms needed to pull Egypt into prosperity. In fact, Egypt's economy was floundering under Morsi, and the government was forced to take loans out from its Gulf neighbours just to stay afloat.
The calls for Morsi's resignation grew by the day, and millions of people flooded into the streets to voice their opinion at Tahrir Square, the place where anti-Mubarak protests gathered during the Arab Spring. Finally, on June 30, the military issued an ultimatum to Mohamed Morsi: Come to a suitable solution with the opposition, or the military will do it for you. Morsi chose the latter, which led to the military ousting Morsi, suspending the Constitution (which was being drafted by Morsi), and imposing an interim government.
Was this really a case of Egyptians rising to overthrow an unpopular leader? Or is there something bigger behind the scenes?
Consider the implications of an Islamist Egypt, particularly if the country were to become more fundamentalist. Morsi's policies before he was ousted certainly indicated that the Muslim Brotherhood indeed has plans to push Egypt away from secularism and toward a greater dependence on Sharia law. As Egypt is one of the most important cultural influences in the Middle East, the rise of Islamist ideology in the country could easily spread to nearby countries, such as Turkey and Libya… perhaps even Saudi Arabia, where the populace has been grumbling that the opulence of its leaders contrasts greatly with the teachings of the prophet Muhammad.
An Islamist Egypt would pave the way for other Islamist regimes or groups to rise up all over the Middle East, many of which would harbor anti-American ideals fueled by decades of unwanted American intervention in Middle Eastern affairs. These Islamist regimes would waste no time to squeeze the US out of the global energy picture by hitting where it hurts: the petrodollar.
An increasingly Islamist Middle East—along with Russia and China—would jump on the idea of trading oil in currencies other than the US dollar. For Americans, this would be disastrous, as prices in the United States would begin skyrocketing the day it stops being the world's reserve currency. It is understandable, then, that the United States will stop at nothing to preventing this from happening.
And if it means that the US has to topple a government that is not aligned with its interests, that's just too bad. The US may have won this battle for the petrodollar, but this is definitely not the last time the very foundation of America's economy will be threatened.
What does this mean for the rest of us, particularly those trying to profit from the situation? It means that as the war over petrodollars continues to rage, we will continue to see political instability in the Middle East—which means volatility in the oil markets. In order to minimize the new political risks, investors will begin to flock toward companies that are in safe jurisdictions and have a stable amount of production.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
