But the wealthiest 10 percent of China's urban households now own 45 percent of the urban wealth while the poorest 10 percent have less than 1.4 percent, Chinese statistics show.
That has left Deng's successors, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, grappling with a wealth differential that economists say is wider than when the Communist Party came to power in a 1949 revolution.
Average urban incomes last year were 9,400 yuan while rural income was 3,000 yuan.
The newspaper of the Communist Party's premier cadre training ground, the Central Party School, reported recently that the wealth disparity had reached the "yellow" warning level and could become a "red" danger within five years.
"Social contradictions" are on the rise, it warned.
Beijing has taken steps to try to buoy rural incomes, allowing grain prices to rise and starting direct farm subsidies. It has also scrapped the agriculture tax, a centuries-old Chinese institution, and tried to abolish an array of crippling local fees.
But some of the measures, while lightening the burden on farmers, have bankrupted local governments, which are forced to raise cash elsewhere. The once robust communist social safety net has vanished, and rural dwellers now pay for things like education and health care.
Kínának nem az usa-tól vagy az eu-tól,mégcsak nem is az olajtol hanem a kínaiaktol kell félnie.....
KURT VONNEGUT: We've killed the planet, the life support system. And it's so damaged that there's no recovery from that. We're very soon going to run out of petroleum which powers everything's that modern-Razzmatazz about America."
DAVID BRANCACCIO: He's on the bestseller list this week with powerful words about the state of the world and the failure of politics.
KURT VONNEGUT: It's the winners. And then everybody else is the losers. And, the winners divided into two parties. The Republicans and the Democrats.
Eko-terroristák Párizsban, leeresztik a terepjárók kerekeit, és besározzák a szélvédőt - ha nem viszik ki az autót a terepre, akkor a terepet hozzák az autóhoz.
Under cover of night, Marrant's troops target Jeep Cherokees, Porsche Cayennes and other four-wheel-drive vehicles parked on the tree-lined avenues and cobblestoned lanes of wealthy neighborhoods. The eco-guerrillas deflate tires without damaging them, smear doors with mud and paste handbills on windshields proclaiming that the vehicles are dangerous, polluting behemoths that do not belong in the city.
"We use the mud to say that if the owners will not take the four-wheel-drives to the countryside, we will bring the countryside to the four-wheel-drives," said Marrant, 28, who uses an alias because angry drivers deluge his website, http://degonfle.blogg.org with e-mails threatening mayhem and questioning his manhood.
Although his nom de guerre was inspired by Subcommander Marcos, the masked Mexican guerrilla revered by leftists, Marrant insists he is not violent or even particularly serious. "Deflated" is a self-deprecating name that also means "coward" in French. The group wants to send a mischievous message while avoiding damage to the vehicles, injury and prosecution, the thin, mop-haired activist said during an interview in a corner cafe on the Seine's left bank, longtime turf of radicals and revolutionaries.
"We emphasize the comic, the burlesque side," Marrant said with the earnest, wide-eyed look of a prankster trying to keep a straight face. "It would be hard to take us to court. We don't slash tires, we deflate them. Air doesn't cost anything. As for getting cars dirty, that's nothing. I would plead guilty to that. Our rules are to never run from the police. And always run from the owners."
Beleolvasva Kovács úr anyagába azért egy dolog feltűnt, ami számomra új volt az eddig megtárgyaltakhoz képest:
A légkörben található szén-dioxid mennyiségét döntő részben az emberi tevékenységtől független - a talajból származó - kőzetképződési és kőzetmállási folyamatok határozzák meg, az antropogén származású CO2 mennyisége e teljes légköri szén-dioxidnak nem jelentős része.
Ha ezt összevetem az általad korábban belinkelt cikk szénciklus adataival, abban ilyen tétel nem is szerepel egyáltalán:
"Azért vannak már nálunk is, akik realitásként gondolnak a kőolaj utáni korban, és készülnek rá. Éppen most néztem a Mindentudás Egyetemén egy előadást"
van ilyen is, de van olyan is.
Kovács úr szerint pl teljesen megnyugtató az alábbi táblázat:
A világ ásványi nyersanyagkészleteit mutatja a következő táblázat (1. táblázat) :
ÁsványfajtaÉv
Szén 84
Bauxit 81
Vas 65
Földgáz 41
Kőolaj 31
Nikkel 30
Ón 28
Réz 22
Cink 20
Ólom 17
Ezüst 15
Ezért néhány főbb ásványféleség esetén azt mutatom be, hogy a világstatisztika szerint a jelenlegi kitermelhető készletek évi 2 %-os termelésnövekedés mellett hány évre biztosítanak ellátottságot. A táblázat adatai szerint egy-két nemzedék ellátottsága is biztosított, ha egyáltalán megmarad az igény az adott ásványféleségre.
Ezzel az a baj, hogy semmi jel nem mutat arra, hogy 30 év múlva ne lenne szükség kőolajra, másrészt pedig ez a táblázat egy matematikai spekuláció, ugyanis nem veszi figyelembe, hogy a kitermelés inkább a Gauss-i haranggörbére hasonlít, semmint egy olyan exponenciális függvényre, amely évi 2%-al növekszik, utána pedig hirtelen belezuhan a nagy semmibe.
A fentiek alapján minden természettudományos alapot nélkülöz az a nézet, hogy a globális hőmérsékletemelkedés okozója a fosszilis energiahordozókat felhasználó ipari létesítmények (erőmű, gépkocsi stb.) CO2 kibocsátása.
A fosszilis ásványi nyersanyagok energetikai arányának (ami jelenleg az OECD országok átlagában 60 %) csökkentésére (az atomenergián túlmenően) a termonukleáris fúziós energia felhasználásig aligha lesz számottevő lehetőség. A fosszilis energiahordozók (tüzelőanyagok) felhasználásának számottevő korlátozása nemkívánatos hatással lenne a fenntartható fejlődésre. Fontos volna, hogy racionálisan értékeljük a természeti tényeket, ne engedjünk a szenzációhajhászásnak.
Úgy tűnik, a mai napon a tv nagyon hozza magát a témakörben.
A History adón ment egy műsor a Peak Oil témakörben, lényegében minden lényeges dologról beszélt, ami ebben a témában fontos. Megszólaltak benne Matt Simmons és más ismert szakértők a témában.
A szakértők és az olajtársaságok jóslatai a a valós hiányok kialakulásáról műsor szerint 20010 és 20025 között szórnak.
Katrina után felfüggesztették a Davis-Bacon törvényt, amelyik az usák minimál-bért szavatolta. A Davis-Bacon törvényt 1931-ben léptették életbe, a gazdasági válságból való kilábalást elősegítendő.
The focus of Democratic opposition is the White House decision to suspend the 1931 Davis-Bacon act, which requires firms working under government contract to pay locally "prevailing wages" to workers.
Critics argue that the law's suspension will mostly benefit big corporations such as Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton, at the expense of the local poor who need a decent wage more than ever.
A CBS televizón egy demokrata és egy republikánus műsorvezető "vitatkozott". A demokrata szerette volna rávenni a republikánust, hogy ismerje be ezt a tényt: Bush megszüntette az 1931 óta érvényben levő Davis-Bacon törvényt. A végeredmény:
Remarks by James Howard Kunstler Author of The Long Emergency
In the waning months of 2005, our failure to face the problems before us as a society is a wondrous thing to behold. Never before in American history have the public and its leaders shown such a lack of resolve, or even interest, in circumstances that will change forever how we live.
Even the greatest convulsion in our national experience, the Civil War, was preceded by years of talk, if not action. But in 2005 we barely have enough talk about what is happening to add up to a public conversation. We're too busy following Paris Hilton and Michael Jackson, or the NASCAR rankings, or the exploits of Donald Trump. We're immersed in a national personality freak show soap opera, with a side order of sports 24-7.
Our failure to pay attention to what is important is unprecedented, even supernatural.
This is true even at the supposedly highest level. The news section of last Sunday's New York Times did not contain one story about oil or gas - a week after Hurricane Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs and production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico - which any thought person can see leading directly to a winter of hardship for many Americans who can barely afford to heat their homes - and the information about the damage around the Gulf was still just then coming in.
What is important?
We've entered a permanent world-wide energy crisis. The implications are enormous. It could put us out-of-business as a cohesive society.
We face a crisis in finance, which will be a consequence of the energy predicament as well as a broad and deep lapse in our standards, values, and behavior in financial affairs.
We face a crisis in practical living arrangements as the infrastructure of suburbia becomes hopelessly unaffordable to run. How will fill our gas tanks to make those long commutes? How will we heat the 3500 square foot homes that people are already in? How will we run the yellow school bus fleets? How will we heat the schools?
What will happen to the economy connected with the easy motoring utopia - the building of ever more McHouses, WalMarts, office parks, and Pizza Huts? Over the past thirty days, with gasoline prices ratcheting above $3 a gallon, individuals all over America are deciding not to buy that new house in Partridge Acres, 34 miles from Dallas (or Minneapolis, or Denver, or Boston). Those individual choices will soon add up, and an economy addicted to that activity will be in trouble.
The housing bubble has virtually become our economy. Subtract it from everything else and there's not much left besides haircutting, fried chicken, and open heart surgery.
And, of course, as the housing bubble deflates, the magical mortgage machinery spinning off a fabulous stream of hallucinated credit, to be re-packaged as tradable debt, will also stop flowing into the finance sector.
We face a series of ramifying, self-reinforcing, terrifying breaks from business-as-usual, and we are not prepared. We are not talking about it in the traditional forums - only in the wilderness of the internet.
Mostly we face a crisis of clear thinking which will lead to further crises of authority and legitimacy - of who can be trusted to hold this project of civilization together.
Americans were once a brave and forward-looking people, willing to face the facts, willing to work hard, to acknowledge the common good and contribute to it, willing to make difficult choices. We've become a nation of overfed clowns and crybabies, afraid of the truth, indifferent to the common good, hardly even a common culture, selfish, belligerent, narcissistic whiners seeking every means possible to live outside a reality-based community.
These are the consequences of a value system that puts comfort, convenience, and leisure above all other considerations. These are not enough to hold a civilization together. We've signed off on all other values since the end of World War Two. Our great victory over manifest evil half a century ago was such a triumph that we have effectively - and incrementally - excused ourselves from all other duties, obligations and responsibilities.
Which is exactly why we have come to refer to ourselves as consumers. That's what we call ourselves on TV, in the newspapers, in the legislatures. Consumers. What a degrading label for people who used to be citizens.
Consumers have no duties, obligations, or responsibilities to anything besides their own desire to eat more Cheez Doodles and drink more beer. Think about yourself that way for twenty or thirty years and it will affect the collective spirit very negatively. And our behavior. The biggest losers, of course, end up being the generations of human beings who will follow us, because in the course of mutating into consumers, preoccupied with our Cheez Doodle consumption, we gave up on the common good, which means that we gave up on the future, and the people who will dwell in it.
There are a few other impediments to our collective thinking which obstruct a coherent public discussion of the events facing us which I call the Long Emergency. They can be described with precision.
Because the creation of suburbia was the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world, it has entailed a powerful psychology of previous investment - meaning, that we have put so much of our collective wealth into a particular infrastructure for daily life, that we can't imagine changing it, or reforming it, or letting go of it. The psychology of previous investment is exactly what makes this way of life non-negotiable.
Another obstacle to clear thinking I refer to as the Las Vegas-i-zation of the American mind. The ethos of gambling is based on a particular idea: the belief that it is possible to get something for nothing. The psychology of unearned riches. This idea has now insidiously crept out of the casinos and spread far-and-wide and lodged itself in every corner of our lives. It's there in the interest-only, no down payment, quarter million-dollar mortgages given to people with no record of ever paying back a loan. It's there in the grade inflation of the ivy league colleges where everybody gets As and Bs regardless of performance. It's in the rap videos of young men flashing 10,000-dollar watches acquired by making up nursery rhymes about gangster life - and in the taboos that prevent us from even talking about that. It's in the suburbanite's sense of entitlement to a supposedly non-negotiable easy motoring existence.
The idea that it's possible to get something for nothing is alive and rampant among those who think we can run the interstate highway system and Walt Disney World on bio-diesel or solar power.
People who believe that it is possible to get something for nothing have trouble living in a reality-based community.
This is even true of the well-intentioned lady in my neighborhood who drives a Ford Expedition with the War Is Not the Answer bumper sticker on it. The truth, for her, is that War IS the Answer. She needs to get down with that. She needs to prepare to send her children to be blown up in Asia.
The Las Vegas-i-zation of the American mind is a pernicious idea in itself, but it is compounded by another mental problem, which I call the Jiminy Cricket syndrome. Jiminy Cricket was Pinocchio's little sidekick in the Walt Disney Cartoon feature. The idea is that when you wish upon a star, your dreams come true. It's a nice sentiment for children, perhaps, but not really suited to adults who have to live in a reality-based community, especially in difficult times.
The idea - that when you wish upon a star, your dreams come true - obviously comes from the immersive environment of advertising and the movies, which is to say, an immersive environment of make-believe, of pretend. Trouble is, the world-wide energy crisis is not make-believe, and we can't pretend our way through it, and those of us who are adults cannot afford to think like children, no matter how comforting it is.
Combine when you wish upon a star, your dreams come true with the belief that it is possible to get something for nothing, and the psychology of previous investment and you get a powerful recipe for mass delusional thinking. As our society comes under increasing stress, we're liable to see increased delusional thinking, as worried people retreat further into make-believe and pretend.
The desperate defense of our supposedly non-negotiable way of life may lead to delusional politics that we have never seen before in this land. An angry and grievance-filled public may turn to political maniacs to preserve their entitlements to the easy motoring utopia - even while reality negotiates things for us.
I maintain that we may see leaders far more dangerous in our future than George W. Bush.
Törökó-t akkor lehet jó befektetési célpont,ha az EU tagság által kikényszerített feltételrendszer létezik.Mo is azért jó befektetési célpont,mert létezik az EU szabályrendszere,amit az EU csatlakozás miatt kényszerítettek ki.
-az urán 100* gyakoribb mint pl a higany,és igaz hogy csak 100-ad annyi van a földkéregben mint klórbol és ezredannyi mint vasbol,de aszem ezekhez képest sok energiát tartalmaz:-)
-A víz 2* jobban oldja az uránt mint a sót,ami azt jelenti hogy a tengerfenékböl kioldott urán gyakorlailag korlátlan utánpótlást jelent,persze csak szaporítóreaktorok esetében.
Egyszerű 5 perces szavazásnak indult. Az új törvény az olajfinomítókra előírt környezetvédelmi előírások enyhítését és építkezési területek kisajátításának lehetőségét tartalmazza.
A republikánusok támogatták, a demokraták ellenezték. A demokraták szerint az olajiparnak így is elég sok pénze van, nem kell nekik újabb engedményeket tenni, úgysem lesz olcsóbb a benzin, csak a profitjaik lesznek nagyobbak.
A republikánus többségű kongresszusban elvileg símán le kellett volna zajlodjon a szavazás, azonban tizenegynéhány republikánus képviselő is az ellenzők pártját fogta, így az első félidő eredménye 210-212.
Itt be is kellett volna fejeződnie, de a republikánusok majd egy órán keresztül húzták az időt, amíg sikerült néhány társukat "jobb" belátásra bírniuk -
miközben sikerült egy kis banánköztársaságos filinget létrehozni.
The AP sanguinely says this about the Republicans strong-arming new energy industry handouts through the House:
The vote, which was supposed to be taken in five minutes, lasted more than 40 minutes as GOP leaders searched for the last two votes they needed to get the bill approved. They buttonholed lawmakers for last-minute lobbying as Democrats complained loudly that the vote should be closed. Finally two GOP lawmakers switched from “no” to “yes,” giving the bill’s supporters the margin of victory.
“Is this the House of a Banana Republic?” Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., shouted at one point, expressing his frustration about the GOP holdup of the final tally.
The details are actually far crazier, as the Dems continually raised “points of inquiry” during the strong-arming. Jesse at Stakeholder likes this one, but I’m more partial to this:
Mr. Steny Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Speaker Pro Tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from Maryland rise? Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me. I’m informed by the tally clerk that every member of congress who is in town has voted. Speaker Pro Tem: Is the gentleman asking a parliamentry inquire? Mr. Hoyer: parliamentry inquiry: in that instance, is it not appropriate once the people have spoken through their representatives in this house to bring the vote to a close? Speaker Pro Tem: it is a hypothetical question and the chair won’t answer a hypothetical question. Mr. Hoyer: I don’t think that is hypothetical. It is a fact. Speaker Pro Tem:: the chair intends to bring the chair — the vote to a close when he believes the members have finished voting. Mr. Hoyer: I thank the speaker. I’m disappointed, but I understand it.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The House narrowly approved a Republican-crafted energy bill Friday aimed at encouraging construction of new refineries, although opponents said it would do nothing to ease energy prices while handing unneeded benefits to a profit-rich oil industry.
Supporters of the measure said that hurricanes Katrina and Rita made clear that the country needs more refineries, including new ones outside of the Gulf region. Critics argued it would allow the oil industry to avoid environmental regulations that would lead to dirtier air.
The bill passed 212-210. Its prospects in the Senate were uncertain.
The vote, which was supposed to be taken in five minutes, lasted more than 40 minutes as GOP leaders searched for the last two votes they needed to get the bill approved. They buttonholed lawmakers for last-minute lobbying as Democrats complained loudly that the vote should be closed. Finally two GOP lawmakers switched from "no" to "yes," giving the bill's supporters the margin of victory.
"Is this the House of a Banana Republic?" Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., shouted at one point, expressing his frustration about the GOP holdup of the final tally.
No Democrats voted for the legislation.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said the bill streamlines the maze of permitting requirements for expanding or building refineries and directs the president to single out federal land where a refinery may be built. The changes could lead to construction of a new U.S. refinery within a year, he predicted.
But opponents said the legislation fails to address the rising cost of natural gas - which will cause heating costs to soar this winter - or deal with high prices motorists are paying at the pump. Instead, they argued, it will allow the oil industry to avoid environmental rules and force states and communities to accept refineries they don't want.
"Using Hurricane Katrina as their excuses the Republicans are again pushing their special interest agenda," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, including "all the special favors to the industry that were too extreme" for Congress last summer when it passed energy legislation.
But Barton said the need for more refineries was made obvious by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The hurricanes shut down a dozen refineries and disrupted a fifth of the country's gasoline supply.
The GOP legislation would give the federal government greater say in locating a refinery, at times, critics said, over community or state objections. It directs the president to select a number of closed military bases and other federal land available for refineries.
The bill also would limit to six the different blends of gasoline and diesel fuel that refiners would be required to produce, reversing a trend of using so-called "boutique" fuels to satisfy clean air demands. State officials complained the provision could limit states' ability to implement federal clean air requirements.
"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil prices," complained Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., one of 13 Republicans who voted against the measure.
With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.
Barton countered that the legislation would give industry more "certainty" that a refinery project will not be delayed "without lessening any environmental law now on the books. ... The bill sets in motion a chain of events for lowering gas prices for Americans."
Attempts to add requirements that automakers increase vehicle fuel economy and a measure aimed at producing more natural gas were thwarted by GOP leaders who strictly limited the ability of lawmakers to amend the bill.
"Natural gas is an issue this (Congress) needs to deal with," said Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., who was prevented under House rules for the bill from offering a proposal that would have opened offshore natural gas resources to drilling.
Among the groups trying to kill the bill were the National League of Cities, nine state attorneys general, most environmental organizations and groups representing state officials in charge of implementing federal clean air requirements. They said the bill would hinder their ability to ensure clean and healthy air.
---
The bill number is H.R. 3893. Additional information can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov
En nem latok sok raciot az ervelesetekben. A torok "fogyasztokat" meg az olcso roman munkaerot szabadpiaci ovezet letrehozasaval is megkaphatjuk. A strategiai boszporuszt katonai szovetseg reven ( NATO ). Anatoliaban gazvezeteket epiteni, hat mar egyszerubb az iraniaknak kivinni a gazt a kaszpi tengerhez/turkmenisztanba es onnan a meglevo indrastrukturat hasznalni europa fele. En csak az eroforrasokert lennek hajlando politikai jogot adni mas orszagoknak. A romanoknak meg a teljes koru magyar autonomiaert, de ez itt off.
Raadasul arrol meg nem is beszeltunk, hogy energiahianyos gazdasagban lesz boven itt is olcso munkaero, es nem az lesz a problema, hogyan szerzunk tobb fogyasztot, hanem epp ellenkezoleg.
Persze elvileg minden energiaforrás megújuló. Az olaj és a gáz is. Csak az a baj, hogy egységnyi idő alatt többet használunk fel, mint amennyi termelődik. Ez hatványozottan igaz a nukleáris energiára. Kibányásszuk, fúzionáltatjuk vagy hasítjuk, de ezáltal fogy. És a következő big bangig kell várni, hogy újra legyen a Földön, de legalábbis egy közeli szupernovarobbanásig...
Az EU csatlakozás hozadékaként ők fogjákjelenteni az áttelepítési célpontokat az üzemeknek kína helyett,ami európát fogja erősíteni a távol kelettel szemben.
Szerintem ezt senki sem vitatja. A probléma inkább az, hogy Oroszo. nem akar a jelenlegi feltételekkel csatlakozni. Mik ezek a feltételek:
1, Valódi demokratikus intézményrendszerek kialakítása - ami Oroszországban ma van, az a demokrácia megcsúfolása...
2, Területi problémák rendezése a szomszéd tagállamokkal - szinte az összes utódtagállammal vita van...
3, az orosz imperialista törekvésekről való lemondás. Jelenleg ennek kevés nyoma van, az idő és a demográfia majd megoldja a dolgokat.
Szvsz Európának Ukrajnára kellene rámozdulnia Törökország helyett, de szélsebesen, amíg vissza nem gravitálnak az oroszokhoz. Ukrajna ugyanis önmagában életképtelen, vagy Oroszország vagy az EU számára az alternatíva.
Ukrajna integrációja nehéz, de nem reménytelen. A kultúrális szakadék kisebb, mint Türökország esetében. Kevesebben is vannak. Nyersanyagokban elég gazdag (bár nem olajban és gázban). Sok orosz van ott, és ha nekik jobban menne, az az oroszországi orosz lakosság is komolyann nyomást fejthetne ki az ottani elitre.
Az EU-nak meg azt kellene belátnia, hogy két választása van:
1, Rengeteg pénzt pumpálni Oroszországba, de ehhez feltételeket kötni (ez a szcenárió az EU csatlakozás esetén) 2, Rengeteg pénzt pumpálni Oroszországba, anélkül, hogy bármilyen feltételeket lehetne támasztani (ez a szcenárió, ha egyszerűen a nyersanyagokat és az energiát egyre drágábban kell beszereznünk tőlük).
Hosszabb távon szvsz az orosz csatlakozáshoz az EU-nak lazítani kellene a transzatlantikus kapcsolatot, saját lábára kellene állnia katonailag. Egy ilyen helyzetben már az oroszok is szívesebben csatlakoznának. Az EU-Oroszo. tandem, ha elkezdenének működni a szinergiák, az USA igen komoly vetélytársává lépne elő.
WNS
P.S. Mit tudtok, Magyarországnak hány évre elegendő nukleáris fűtőanyag stratégiai készlete van? Azaz, ha az oroszok holnaptól nem szállítanának, mennyi ideig tudna Paks változatlan szinten termelni?
A megújuló energiaforrásokon belül nem tekintem alternatínak a vízenergiát, mert az már ma is nagyon jelentős szerepet játszik. Számomra az alternatív, kb. azt jelenti, hogy a jelenleg széleskörben használt energiaforrásokkal szembern potenicális alternatívát nyújtó.
Persze mások az alternatívot használják a megújuló szinonímájaként. Ilyenkor az alternatív a nem megújuló energiaforrásokkal szemben potenicális alternatívát nyújtót jelent.
Emiatt nem is szerencsés az alternatív jelző, mert önmagában nem egyértelmű, definiálni kell azt, hogy mihez képest alternatív.
Oroszorszag is szomszedos Irannal a Kaszpi tengeren keresztul. Raadasul arrafele mar epul az infrastruktura is. Tehat nem nyerunk sokat a torokkel,viszont kapunk meg 70/80 millio ehes szajat is.
