Superkapitalizam

[hazard]

Ako gledamo trenutno stanje, 3D štampanje je prehajpovano. Da, ono ima potencijal da bude nešto jako revolucionarno - pod uslovom da radi kao replikatori iz Star Treka: napraviš šta oćeš, gde oćeš, kad oćeš, i to sve jako brzo. No, meni se čini da celo to polje još jako daleko od tog cilja: izbor materijala od kojih možeš nešto da napraviš je ograničen, izbor proizvoda koji možeš tim putem da napraviš je ograničen, i sve je prilično sporo. I na kraju, prilično skupo. Dakle to je još uvek daleko od neke konkurencije za masovnu proizvodnju u Kini (ili bilo gde). Možda jednog dana bude, ali potrebno je tu još dosta razvoja.

 

Ono gde 3D štampanje koliko vidim već ima svoju nišu i gde potiskuje ranije tehnologije i usluge je proizvodnja unikatnih primeraka ili malih serija. Dakle ja bih rekao da je izvesno da će 3D printing da potisne u nekim oblastima ručni rad i druge vrste ,,custom" pristupa, jer ono zaista jeste stvoreno za taj rad ,,po narudžbini". A to znači da će opet jedna tehnologija potisnuti i zameniti neku obučeniju, stručniju i skuplju radnu snagu (znači ne neuke radnike na traci, već neke majstore-zanatlije). Za dalje od toga, ostaje da se vidi.

[Budja]

Ako gledamo trenutno stanje, 3D štampanje je prehajpovano. Da, ono ima potencijal da bude nešto jako revolucionarno - pod uslovom da radi kao replikatori iz Star Treka: napraviš šta oćeš, gde oćeš, kad oćeš, i to sve jako brzo. No, meni se čini da celo to polje još jako daleko od tog cilja: izbor materijala od kojih možeš nešto da napraviš je ograničen, izbor proizvoda koji možeš tim putem da napraviš je ograničen, i sve je prilično sporo. I na kraju, prilično skupo. Dakle to je još uvek daleko od neke konkurencije za masovnu proizvodnju u Kini (ili bilo gde). Možda jednog dana bude, ali potrebno je tu još dosta razvoja.

 

Ono gde 3D štampanje koliko vidim već ima svoju nišu i gde potiskuje ranije tehnologije i usluge je proizvodnja unikatnih primeraka ili malih serija. Dakle ja bih rekao da je izvesno da će 3D printing da potisne u nekim oblastima ručni rad i druge vrste ,,custom" pristupa, jer ono zaista jeste stvoreno za taj rad ,,po narudžbini". A to znači da će opet jedna tehnologija potisnuti i zameniti neku obučeniju, stručniju i skuplju radnu snagu (znači ne neuke radnike na traci, već neke majstore-zanatlije). Za dalje od toga, ostaje da se vidi.

 

Recimo, proteze. Citao neki clanak u kome se pise kako se drasticno smanjuju troskovi izrade proteza za ruke, noge i sl.

[Indy]

Iz članka o rastućoj nejednakosti (u Australiji) prenosim jedan zanimljivi komentar...

 

 

IanCPurdie

 

I doubt very much this is surprising news to anyone at all.

 

What I don't understand is how this gap opened up in the first place? One example alone - why are corporate CEO's paid such obscene sums of money? Even executives further down the ladder.

 

Going back to the very early 1960's when I was a young payroll clerk studying accountancy, I worked for Prospect County Council. I can still remember many pay rates from way back then.

 

Prospect County Council was an electricity authority which distributed electricity to it's constituent council areas from Parramatta Council to Penrith Council further west, Baulkham Hills, Fairfield, Liverpool and Hawkesbury. A huge distribution area.

 

A labourer was paid around £19 per week. A tradesman was paid around £24 per week. A foreman was paid around £28 per week. A lowly 20+ year old pay clerk was paid around £16 per week.

 

And the CEO? He was called the County Clerk back in those days, he was paid around £60 per week. An enormous sum those days. I doubt many corporate executives in private enterprise were paid very much more.

 

The significant point? His salary was always around three times that of a labourer.

 

Today?

 

When I left PCC in November 1964 to become one of the inaugural Branch Managers for the new NSW TAB, my salary rocketed to a heady £24/10/- per week. Even later, as a corporate accountant at the Hooker Corporation, there wasn't such great disparity between the bottom and the top as exists today.

 

As I said before. Today? But why? What moral justification exists?

 

I have family members earning $180 - 200, 000 a year, and consider that is just "average" - others even earn twice that amount. Yet I have younger grand-kids who work three part-time jobs, crap shifts, crap conditions and earn peanuts in comparison.

 

Something is very radically wrong with our society today.

 

[Prospero]

Možda mašim temu, čini mi se da je tekst bar tangira

 

 

 

J. Bradford DeLong

JAN 28, 2016

Economics in the Age of Abundance

 

 

BERKELEY – Until very recently, one of the biggest challenges facing mankind was making sure there was enough to eat. From the dawn of agriculture until well into the Industrial Age, the common human condition was what nutritionists and public-health experts would describe as severe and damaging nutritional biomedical stress.

 

Some 250 years ago, Georgian England was the richest society that had ever existed, and yet food shortages still afflicted large segments of the population. Adolescents sent to sea by the Marine Society to be officer’s servants were half a foot (15 centimeters) shorter than the sons of the gentry. A century of economic growth later, the working class in the United States was still spending 40 cents of every extra dollar earned on more calories.

 

Today, food scarcity is no longer a problem, at least in high-income countries. In the US, roughly 1% of the labor force is able to grow enough food to supply the entire population with sufficient calories and essential nutrients, which are transported and distributed by another 1% of the labor force. That does not account for the entire food industry, of course. But most of what is being done by the remaining 14% of the labor force dedicated to delivering food to our mouths involves making what we eat tastier or more convenient – jobs that are more about entertainment or art than about necessity.

 

The challenges we face are now those of abundance. Indeed, when it comes to workers dedicated to our diets, we can add some of the 4% of the labor force who, working as nurses, pharmacists, and educators, help us solve problems resulting from having consumed too many calories or the wrong kinds of nutrients.

 

More than 20 years ago, Alan Greenspan, then-Chair of the US Federal Reserve, started pointing out that GDP growth in the US was becoming less driven by consumers trying to acquire more stuff. Those in the prosperous middle class were becoming much more interested in communicating, seeking out information, and trying to acquire the right stuff to allow them to live their lives as they wished.

 

Of course, the rest of the world still faces problems of scarcity; roughly one-third of the world’s population struggles to get enough food. And there is no guarantee that those problems will solve themselves. It is worth recalling that a little over 150 years ago, both Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill believed that India and Britain would converge economically in no more than three generations.

 

There is no shortage of problems to worry about: the destructive power of our nuclear weapons, the pig-headed nature of our politics, the potentially enormous social disruptions that will be caused by climate change. But the number one priority for economists – indeed, for humankind – is finding ways to spur equitable economic growth.

 

But job number two– developing economic theories to guide societies in an age of abundance – is no less complicated. Some of the problems that are likely to emerge are already becoming obvious. Today, many people derive their self-esteem from their jobs. As labor becomes a less important part of the economy, and working-age men, in particular, become a smaller proportion of the workforce, problems related to social inclusion are bound to become both more chronic and more acute.

 

Such a trend could have consequences extending far beyond the personal or the emotional, creating a population that is, to borrow a phrase from the Nobel-laureate economists George Akerlof and Robert Shiller, easily phished for phools. In other words, they will be targeted by those who do not have their wellbeing as their primary goal – scammers like Bernie Madoff, corporate interests like McDonalds or tobacco companies, the guru of the month, or cash-strapped governments running exploitative lotteries.

 

Problems like these will require a very different type of economics from the one championed by Adam Smith. Instead of working to protect natural liberty where possible, and building institutions to approximate its effects elsewhere, the central challenge will be to help people protect themselves from manipulation.

 

To be sure, it is not clear that economists will have a comparative advantage in addressing these problems. But, for now at least, behavioral economists like Akerlof, Shiller, Richard Thaler, and Matthew Rabin seem to be leading the field. In any case, one need only glance at the headlines to comprehend that the issue has become a defining feature of our economic epoch.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Prospero

[Budja]

I ovaj takodje ne znam gde da stavim, ali je dobar je celendzuje conventional wisdom.

 

 

The economics of corruption

The wages of sin

 

In theory, higher pay cuts corruption. In practice, the opposite happens

 

Jan 30th 2016 | From the print edition

 

WHETHER the miscreants are African policemen, European politicians or American university basketball players, the same remedy for corrupt behaviour is offered: pay people more money. It sounds intuitive. But does legitimate lucre really drive out the filthy kind? New research involving a natural experiment in West Africa suggests that it does not—and that conventional economic theories of corruption are wrong. In 2010 Ghana began to move public officials to a new salary structure. The earliest and biggest beneficiaries were police officers, whose pay abruptly doubled. It was hoped that they would start behaving better as a result—and especially that they would stop extorting money from drivers at roadblocks. There was certainly much room for improvement: surveys around that time by Transparency International, a watchdog, found that 91% of Ghanaians believed their police were corrupt, an even higher proportion than thought the same of politicians. As it happened, a large survey was already under way of lorry drivers plying the roads of Ghana and its neighbour, Burkina Faso. Drivers with their papers in order were asked to record how many times they were stopped and how much money they paid to police and customs officials along the route. Two American economists, Jeremy Foltz and Kweku Opoku­Agyemang, have examined the data on 2,100 long­haul journeys. Oddly, they find that Ghana’s police became more corrupt after their salaries increased, both absolutely and relative to Burkina Faso’s police and Ghanaian customs officers. The cops erected more roadblocks, detained lorries for longer (the average driver was stopped 16 times as he drove through Ghana, for eight minutes each time) and extracted more money. Economic theory suggests the opposite should have happened, for two reasons. First, corruption is risky. You might lose your job if you do it, and the more you are paid, the bigger that loss would be. Second, officials are thought to have an income target. If they are underpaid, they will behave corruptly in order to make up the difference. The fact that some British MPs cheated on their expenses a decade ago was put down to the fact that they earned less than similarly qualified people. Ghana’s president, John Mahama, said last year  that there was “no justification” for corruption now that salaries were higher. Employees in the rich world who suddenly receive more money per hour—when their taxes are cut, for example—tend not to work less, as they might do if they had a fixed income target in mind. They work more. But given that the rewards from corruption had not gone up, this does not explain why Ghanaian police officers engaged in more graft. Mr Foltz and Mr Opoku­Agyemang, whose research was funded by the International Growth Centre at the London School of Economics, suggest that corrupt superiors or greedy relatives might have demanded more money from the officers. Another possibility is that the cops’ expectations went up. The pay rise may have boosted their sense of their own worth, leading them to demand more money. It might be that the risk of being caught in Ghana is so low that normal calculations of risk and reward do not apply. Perhaps a combination of higher pay, political leadership and stiff punishments would have stopped corruption: it did in Singapore, for example. But money alone is not enough. In Ghana, some are astonished that anybody could have believed that higher pay would have made cops less greedy. That is just not human nature. As Ransford Van Gyampo, a political scientist at the University of Ghana, puts it: “In spite of how big the sea is, it still receives rain.”

[Indy]

 

 

If you play by the rules, you get priced out of the market 

 

Citat je iz teksta 'Cowboy' truckies ignoring height limits continue to create bedlam in Sydney  međutim, ima veoma široku primenu danas. Drugi način da se kaže, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

[pacey defender]

Dakle u ovom trenutku imamo dva pokreta: jedan koji podržava globalizaciju i brani njene prednosti, naročito za onih 5% na vrhu, što može da dovede do postepenog prelaza iz demokratije u plutokratiju i, da citiram Gramšija, do ponovnog uspostavljanja hegemonije ovog narativa i ovih interesa – dok sa druge strane imamo desničarski antiglobalistički pokret.

 

 

 

 

http://pescanik.net/novi-pristup-nejednakosti/ Branko Milanović  

 

Edited March 27, 2016 by pacey defender

[Budja]

Ima tu jos zanimljivih delova.

 

Recimo ovaj

 

 

Ali rizik nije samo politički. Mnogi ekonomisti, uključujući i Roberta Rajha, smatraju da je ekonomsku krizu izazvala nejednaka preraspodela dohotka. Prosto rečeno, postoji rizik slabe tražnje zbog visoke koncentracije dohotka.

Postoje rešenja, iako ih nije lako ostvariti. Na primer, smatram da je zbog globalizacije vrlo teško sprovesti veće oporezivanje bogatih i prihoda od kapitala. Čak i ako neka zemlja odluči da podigne poreze ili ako to učine desetine zemalja, uvek će se naći zemlje koje su spremne da ponude niže poreze kako bi privukle kapital.

Političke odluke treba da idu u drugom pravcu, prema jednakoj raspodeli sposobnosti. Piketi je u pravu kada kaže da vlasništvo nad kapitalom određuje veći prihod i upravo tu treba intervenisati. To se pre svega odnosi na obrazovanje, kako bi se obezbedila relativno jednaka zarada za ljude sa sličnim kvalifikacijama, za razliku od onoga što imamo danas gde oni koji dolaze sa Harvarda dobijaju desetostruko veću zaradu od onih koji dolaze sa manje prestižnih univerziteta. Ujednačiti kvalitet obrazovanja bi imalo sličan efekat kao dekoncentracija vlasništva nad kapitalom.

Istovremeno bi bilo važno smanjiti koncentraciju kapitala, što je teže, ali ne i nemoguće ostvariti. U prošlosti smo imali slične primere: radnici vlasnici akcija preduzeća, radničko saodlučivanje u Nemačkoj, veća uloga sindikata u upravnim odborima, sindikalno vlasništvo nad akcijama preduzeća u Švedskoj. Naravno, to nije lako ali je daleko održivije od opcija koje danas imamo.

 

 a i ovaj (bilo je reci na drugom topicu o tome)

 

 

 

Što se tehnološke revolucije tiče, nisam pesimista. Svaka tehnološka promena praćena je strahom od masovne nezaposlenosti, koja je do sada uvek izostala. Tu nas ograničava naša imaginacija, jer vidimo samo poslova koji trenutno postoje, ali ne i one koji će se pojaviti u budućnosti. Zamišljamo robote koji nam uzimaju postojeće poslove i strahujemo za budućnost, ali ne znamo kakva će ona biti. Daću vam jedan primer: kada sam pre mnogo godina došao u SAD, živeo sam sa majkom, naročito tokom rata u Jugoslaviji. Ona nije mogla da razume poslove ljudi sa kojima sam se družio. Znala je šta su obućar ili lekar, ali je za nju posao hedž fond menadžera bio potpuno neshvatljiv. Sada imamo razne poslove u IT sektoru, startapove, stvari koje do pre samo nekoliko godina nisu postojale.

 

 

mada, opet ostaje nekako nedoreceno:

 

1. Sta su uzroci nejednakosti? 

Da, razumem prelivanje srednje klase iz zapada ka Kini, ali ne razumem zasto bi rente za 1% na zapadu toliko skocile.Milanovic ne spominje ono sto meni stalno bode oci u crony globalnom kapitalizmu - rentijerska uloga finansijskog sektora.

 

2. Levica, desnica, centralno.

Dobro, mozda je Branko ekonomista ali mu je politicka analiza povrsna. Levica skrenula udesno, ok, znamo to, ali je pitanje zasto? Mozda je kraj berlinskog zida koincidirao i sa prilicno dobrim godinama za sve u devedesetim i pomeranje levice ka identitetskim a zanemarivanje klasnih politika. Takodje, nije jasan njegov vrednosni sud nove levice, a ja mislim da je to jako vazno jer mi se cini da prodaje muda za bubrege. Iskustvo levice u Latinskoj Americi, a u sta su prvaci Podemosa debelo umesani  kazuje ne da se sistem menja, vec da se jedan klijentelisticki kapitalizam zamenjuje drugim sto samo rezultira dramaticnijim socijalnim podelama (videti  pod Venecuelom, Argentinom gde se kirsneristi ne skidaju sa ulica...).

 

3. Obrazovanje kao odgovor na sve. Nekako mi se lako to cini.

Da li je cilj "ujednaciti" obrazovanje ili "poboljsati obrazovanje na  drzavnim univerzitetima" (kada je rec o SAD, mada je Berkley, recimo, drzavni)? Cini mi se da insistiranje na ujednacavanju vodi megatrendizaciji. Sa druge strane, prevlast Harvarda nije samo u znanju  vec i u mrezi, prestizu, gigantskom fondu koji  ih finansira.

Zatim, ne razumem zasto Branko insistira na univerzitetskom obrazovanju. Body of evidence pokazuje da je u 18oj vec kasno, problem  je od kolevke pa do 18 godine.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Budja

[hazard]

 

3. Obrazovanje kao odgovor na sve. Nekako mi se lako to cini.

Da li je cilj "ujednaciti" obrazovanje ili "poboljsati obrazovanje na  drzavnim univerzitetima" (kada je rec o SAD, mada je Berkley, recimo, drzavni)? Cini mi se da insistiranje na ujednacavanju vodi megatrendizaciji. Sa druge strane, prevlast Harvarda nije samo u znanju  vec i u mrezi, prestizu, gigantskom fondu koji  ih finansira.

Zatim, ne razumem zasto Branko insistira na univerzitetskom obrazovanju. Body of evidence pokazuje da je u 18oj vec kasno, problem  je od kolevke pa do 18 godine.

 

Ni ja ne vidim kako ,,ujednacavanje" na nacin na koji ga on izgleda spominje vodi na kraju bilo cemu osim srozavanju prestiznih univerziteta...poenta jeste valjda da se digne ili poboljsa kvalitet ovih drugih, kao sto kazes. Medjutim, neka vrsta ,,elite" u obrazovnom sistemu ce postojati uvek - a ja mislim i da treba da postoji. Broj vanserijskih profesora, studenata, doktoranata, istrazivaca itd. uvek ce biti ogranicen - i mnogo je veca korist od toga da oni bude skoncentrisani dobrim delom na malom broju ,,elitnih" univerziteta nego da budu rasprseni radi nekakve jednakosti. To naravno ne znaci da ne treba teziti tome da prosecni profesor, student, doktorant, istrazivac bude bolji nego sto jeste sada. Ono sto je bitno kod ,,elitnih" univerziteta je meritokratija - pod jedan, da se elitni status dostize i odrzava realnim rezultatima u konkurenciji sa ostalima, a pod dva, da ove instuticije bude otvorene i da primaju najbolje u svoje redove zato sto su stvarno najbolji a ne zato sto imaju odredjeno poreklo ili vezu. Nije problem ako je Harvard najbolji univerzitet sa najboljim studentima, problem je ako Harvard odrzava svoj status na konto svojih politickih i biznis veza i ako se primaju studenti na osnovu toga u koju su privatnu gimnaziju isli i ko im je cale, umesto na osnovu proseka i ucinka na SATu.

[Anduril]

Ujednacavanje obrazovanja je nerealno za razliku od poreza i kapitala.

Porez je porez, kapital je kapital a talenat nije uvek talenat. 

 

Prica da je nerealno oporezivanja kapitala jer ce uvek pobeci je bullshit - problem je vise u politickoj volji da se to sprovede.

Nekoliko kljucnih igraca bi resilo problem pojednostavljivanjem i povezivanjem prava/obaveze kapitala kao sto se to vec radi sa pravima/obavezama fizickih lica.

Recimo, ako Apple ili neki investitor ne zele da plate porez na profite u nekom regionu (SAD/EU) i da tako izmiruju obaveze, treba da im se uskrate i prava, tj. zabrana poslovanja.

 

Umesto njih ce uleteti neka druga firma ili investitor a trzista te velicine nema mnogo na planeti.

Mogu oni i da posluju samo na Kajmanskim ostrvima ali ce tesko tamo podati milione telefona ili naci dobru investiciju.

No, takva pravila bi trebalo da se uvedu na nivou WTO a za sada politicki pritisak u SAD i EU od strane gradjana i javnosti ocigledno nije ni priblizno dovoljan da se nesto uradi po ovim pitanjima.

 

Prosto ujednacavanje prava kapitala, korporacija i gradjana bi trebala da bude glavna ideoloska tema i pritisak progresivnih snaga u sledecih 50 godina.

U protivnom ce se stanje vratiti na nesto nalik feudalnim odnosima.

[Dagmar]

Imali smo pre nekoliko meseci sličnu raspravu na poslu, koleginica je tvrdila da Google i Starbucks, koji ne plaćaju porez, ne možeš naterati da plaćaju porez jer će inače otići iz zemlje. Naučene rečenice, kako su ih već njihovi političari naučili da je borba uzaludna.

I sad ja kažem, ajde za Google ne znam, možda može da ode skroz u Kinu i tamo nađe sve radnike a ovde samo prodaje, pa i da razumem strah. Ali Starbucks, pa to je prodavnica kafe. Izbaciš ih lepo sa tržišta, za pet dana niče novih milion kafedžarnica, neka možda bude čak i bolja, al u najmanju ruku znaće neku prosek kagu da skuvaju, elem rizika nema. Međutim koleginica vrti skeptično glavom, ne može to tako da radi, teško ih je naterati, bla bla. U zaključku mora baš ovako kako je.

 

Još jedna interesantna stvar, pre neki dan prodali su firmu koja ima preko 200 miliona obrta i svega milion evra profita, za nekih 50 miliona evra. Neko pravilo je da se firma kupuje za maks deset puta veću sumu od godišnjeg profita, pošto ovako treba preko 50 godina samo da vratiš novac koji si dao za kupovinu. i cela zemlja to zna, i nije problem nikome sem meni, jer tako ti je to u kapitalizmu, naučili ih.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Dagmar

[Anduril]

Imali smo pre nekoliko meseci sličnu raspravu na poslu, koleginica je tvrdila da Google i Starbucks, koji ne plaćaju porez, ne možeš naterati da plaćaju porez jer će inače otići iz zemlje. Naučene rečenice, kako su ih već njihovi političari naučili da je borba uzaludna.

I sad ja kažem, ajde za Google ne znam, možda može da ode skroz u Kinu i tamo nađe sve radnike a ovde samo prodaje, pa i da razumem strah. Ali Starbucks, pa to je prodavnica kafe. Izbaciš ih lepo sa tržišta, za pet dana niče novih milion kafedžarnica, neka možda bude čak i bolja, al u najmanju ruku znaće neku prosek kagu da skuvaju, elem rizika nema. Međutim koleginica vrti skeptično glavom, ne može to tako da radi, teško ih je naterati, bla bla. U zaključku mora baš ovako kako je.

 

Slazem se u potpunosti. Uzmimo upravo Google - nece da plate porez u nekoj manjoj drzavi - blokiras im sajt u toj drzavi, ima drugih koji ce uskociti, platiti porez i uzeti profit.

Naravno, ukoliko su porezi tipa 75% to nece biti dobro okruzenje za poslovanje.

 

Ali, ukoliko su porezi recimo 25% a porez omogucuje dobru infrastrukturu (puteve, broadband itd.), naravno da je to kompetitivno.

Medjutim, trenutno ne mozes da izbacis Google - ne zbog kapitalizma nego sto bi ti lupili sankcije. Problem je dakle politicki, pre svega u SAD ali i EU koja to prati.

 

 

Još jedna interesantna stvar, pre neki dan prodali su firmu koja ima preko 200 miliona obrta i svega milion evra profita, za nekih 50 miliona evra. Neko pravilo je da se firma kupuje za maks deset puta veću sumu od godišnjeg profita, pošto ovako treba preko 50 godina samo da vratiš novac koji si dao za kupovinu. i cela zemlja to zna, i nije problem nikome sem meni, jer tako ti je to u kapitalizmu, naučili ih.

 

Dobro, ovo je drugo jer se u cenu ponekad uracunava i buduci razvoj. Neke firme spadaju u mature technologies/industries ali neke ne.

I Google ranije nije pravio velike profite ali se to promenilo.

[Dagmar]

Dobro, ovo je drugo jer se u cenu ponekad uracunava i buduci razvoj. Neke firme spadaju u mature technologies/industries ali neke ne.

I Google ranije nije pravio velike profite ali se to promenilo.

 

Lanac sendvičara. Planiraju da održe formulu, znači očekuje se neki +- sličan obrt, može manje, ali teško da će se desiti neka esplozija profita u budućnosti.

[Eraserhead]

 

Lanac sendvičara. Planiraju da održe formulu, znači očekuje se neki +- sličan obrt, može manje, ali teško da će se desiti neka esplozija profita u budućnosti.

 

Cena se u velikoj vecini slucajeva ne odredjuje na osnovu profita vec na osnovu novcanih tokova a izrazava se kao EBITDA x neki multiplikator (nekad se moze gledati revenue ukoliko se radi o mladoj kompaniji ili industriji koja jos ne pravi profit). Investitor kupuje buduce novcane tokove a ne neto profit koji je uglavnom racunovodstvena kategorija i cesto ne govori mnogo.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Eraserhead

[Sestre Bronte]

5x obično