SECCION Crisis monetaria: US/EURO, dolar vs otras monedas

Gráfico del tipo de cambio del Dólar Americano al Euro - Desde dic 1, 2008 a dic 31, 2008

Evolucion del dolar contra el euro

US Dollar to Euro Exchange Rate Graph - Jan 7, 2004 to Jan 5, 2009

V. SECCION: M. PRIMAS

1. SECCION:materias primas en linea:precios


[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]


METALES A 30 DIAS click sobre la imagen
(click sur l´image)

3. PRIX DU CUIVRE

  Cobre a 30 d [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

4. ARGENT/SILVER/PLATA

5. GOLD/OR/ORO

6. precio zinc

7. prix du plomb

8. nickel price

10. PRIX essence






petrole on line

Find out how to invest in energy stocks at EnergyAndCapital.com.

azucar

azucar
mercados,materias primas,azucar,precios y graficos azucar i otros

29 jul 2008

BOLIVIA: REFERENDO REVOCATORIO

Morales advierte sobre 'golpe electoral' en Bolivia
martes 29 de julio de 2008 14:11 GYT


Por Carlos Alberto Quiroga

LA PAZ (Reuters) - El presidente de Bolivia, Evo Morales, denunció el martes que aún persiste el riesgo de un "golpe electoral" desde regiones controladas por la derecha con el objeto de impedir el referendo revocatorio convocado para el 10 de agosto y del cual espera salir fortalecido.

El mandatario indígena, quien ha encontrado en el referendo la posibilidad de romper un cerco opositor a su "revolución" indigenista-socialista, hizo la advertencia al clausurar en la madrugada un congreso de cocaleros en el que fue ratificado como líder del sector en el que inició su carrera política.

Apenas horas después de la denuncia presidencial, la corte electoral del rico departamento oriental de Santa Cruz dijo que pedirá la suspensión del referendo en una reunión convocada para el miércoles por la Corte Nacional Electoral (CNE), que el lunes ratificó la continuidad del proceso revocatorio.

El presidente de la corte cruceña, Mario Parada, dijo que había convocado a un encuentro de cortes departamentales para llevar a la CNE "un criterio fuerte y sólido para que se suspenda el revocatorio," según cadenas de radio y televisión.

El anuncio de Parada pone de nuevo bajo incertidumbre al referendo, que se considera prácticamente garantizado desde que la CNE descartó definitivamente una sugerencia de una magistrada del Tribunal Constitucional de suspender la consulta hasta que se resuelvan dudas sobre su legalidad.

Morales, un combativo "anti imperialista" que también recibió en las últimas semanas decididos respaldos de los presidentes Hugo Chávez de Venezuela y Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva de Brasil, dijo que autoridades electorales regionales todavía intentarían boicotear el proceso revocatorio.

"La advertencia que hacen (los cocaleros) a las cortes electorales es un buen mensaje, comparto esa decisión porque las cortes quieren dar un golpe a la democracia," dijo Morales.

El mandatario, quien según varias encuestas sería ratificado en el referendo, señaló que un "golpe" a esa consulta sólo buscaría impedir que concluya un complejo proceso de cambio de Constitución y proteger a prefectos opositores que corren el riesgo de perder sus cargos en la misma votación.

USA:Can Hank Paulson Defuse This Crisis?, NYT

Can Hank Paulson Defuse This Crisis?
J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

As the Bush administration’s third Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr. has faced a brutal series of crises on Wall Street and in Washington that have sparked fiercely partisan debates.


Article Tools Sponsored By
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN and JENNY ANDERSON
Published: July 27, 2008

IF Henry M. Paulson Jr. hadn’t left Wall Street for Washington to become Treasury secretary in 2006, he would still be making tens of millions of dollars a year as the chairman of Goldman Sachs. He would be comfortably zipping around the globe on a corporate jet. He would be presiding over the only big Wall Street firm that hasn’t lost billions on bad debt.


Ed Quinn

In 1994, Henry Paulson, left, and Jon Corzine, right, served under Stephen Friedman at Goldman Sachs.

He wouldn’t be answering rounds of questions at meandering Congressional hearings. He wouldn’t be at the center of the Bush administration’s struggle to contain a potential financial meltdown the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since the Great Depression.

And he certainly wouldn’t be openly (and with a grin) comparing himself to Job, the Bible’s best-known punching bag.

Still, he insists that he doesn’t regret leaving his perch atop Goldman Sachs when the president called.

“I don’t look back,” he told New York Times editors and reporters in a meeting last Monday. “It wasn’t my first choice, ever. I enjoyed what I was doing. I thought it was the right thing to do.”

Whether Mr. Paulson has actually done the right things during his two uneven years in office has been a matter of intense debate in financial and political circles. That debate reached a boiling point last week as Congress moved toward approval of a taxpayer-financed rescue package that Mr. Paulson advocated for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage giants that appear to be powder kegs.

Even Mr. Paulson, for all his Wall Street experience and market savvy, occasionally appears flummoxed by the scale and complexity of the current crisis.

“When I talk to people, there are a whole lot of them that say: ‘I don’t like this,’ ‘I don’t like that,’ ‘I don’t like the other thing,’ ” he said in the Times meeting. “I say: ‘Neither do I. What idea do you have? What do you think we should do?’ ”

Mr. Paulson is leading the Bush administration’s struggle to contain an economic contagion stemming from a disintegrating housing sector, volatile financial markets and frozen credit, skyrocketing energy and food prices, widening job losses, and a precipitous fall in the dollar.

As he scrambles to find solutions to these myriad and interconnected challenges he has earned plaudits for how quickly he has recently marshaled federal resources. Yet he’s also been roundly criticized as having not grasped the threat and severity of the crisis when it began to snowball about 18 months ago.

Moreover, a Treasury secretary who initially preached against “excessive regulation” of the financial sector is presiding over a sweeping government intervention in the economy, one that conceivably marks the end of a federal deregulatory push that began in the late 1970s and accelerated in subsequent decades.

And an administration that has rarely had conflicts with its allies in Congress discovered that the Fannie and Freddie legislation is opposed by most Republicans in the House of Representatives, some of whom claim it smacked of socialism.

Critics on the right also accuse Mr. Paulson and Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, of panicking and over-reaching, keeping interest rates low, which they say has fanned inflation and caused the dollar to skid.

Facing the possibility of even worse economic news in the months to come, Mr. Paulson — whose nickname “The Hammer” comes from his days as an offensive lineman on the Dartmouth football team in the ’60s — has won praise on Wall Street and Capitol Hill, particularly among Democrats, for his role in fashioning solutions to economic difficulties this year.

“He has handled this crisis extremely well,” said Representative Barney Frank, the acerbic Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and customarily a scathing critic of the Bush administration. “It’s fair to say that he and almost everybody else failed to anticipate some of these problems. We all underestimated it. What I give him credit for is how rapidly he adapted.”

But other observers say they still aren’t convinced that Mr. Paulson’s overall performance has been up to speed, seeing it as overly reactive rather than proactive.

“I’m afraid there’s much more Treasury could have done much earlier in this process,” says Thomas H. Stanton, an author and expert on mortgage finance. “Once the financial markets showed signs of panic, Treasury had to act.”

And, Mr. Stanton adds, “it’s almost as if Treasury was panicked as well.”

Still, say others, Mr. Paulson and his Treasury team can’t shoulder all of the criticism aimed at the federal government over its handling of the financial crisis.

It wasn’t just the Treasury; it was a problem throughout the federal government that everyone was asleep at the wheel,” said Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University. “They let the subprime market and housing bubble expand without any controls. They believed in risk-management models,” he said, thinking that “market discipline would be better than regulation. But the lesson we have learned is that self-regulation means no regulation.”
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Mr. Paulson left Wall Street to become President Bush’s third Treasury secretary, on July 10, 2006.
Multimedia
Related
Times Topics: Henry M. Paulson Jr.
Add to Portfolio

* Goldman Sachs Group Incorporated

Go to your Portfolio »
Brendan Smialowski/Bloomberg News

Critics say policies of Mr. Paulson, at back, and Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, have contributed to inflation and the dollar’s slide.

WHEN Mr. Paulson accepted the Treasury job, he sought advice from Robert E. Rubin, another former Goldman Sachs chief, who served as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. The two sat together in the library of Mr. Rubin’s Manhattan home as Mr. Paulson peppered him with questions about how Washington works.

“Some people from business or law go down to Washington and they go with the view that they’ve done very well in whatever they’ve done and they can take that same way of functioning and apply it in Washington,” says Mr. Rubin. “Very often that doesn’t work. Others say, ‘I’ve had a lot of experience, but this world operates in different ways and I have to learn how this world works.’ That’s a much more effective approach, and that’s my impression of what Hank has done.”

In Washington, where politicians and policy wonks can feel in their bones when a Cabinet member does or doesn’t have clout, Mr. Paulson’s stock is riding high.

It was the Treasury chief, for example, who persuaded Mr. Bush to go along with a $168 billion economic stimulus package in cooperation with Democrats early this year. As markets fell precipitously in March, he worked with Federal Reserve officials to orchestrate the fire sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase, encouraging the Fed to financially back the deal and open its coffers to other ailing investment firms.

Bear Stearns complained that it was being forced to accept a low-ball price for its ailing shares; Mr. Paulson demanded a rock-bottom price so the public didn’t have the impression that Bear’s shareholders were getting a life raft paid for by Main Street taxpayers.

And this month, as Mr. Paulson helped hammer out emergency legislation authorizing the federal government to potentially inject hundreds of billions of dollars into Fannie and Freddie if the government-sponsored mortgage makers weaken further, he spent long hours with lawmakers of both parties.

Although the White House made clear its distaste for parts of the legislation, especially increased federal spending for homeowners, it said that Mr. Bush was taking the Treasury secretary’s advice not to veto the bill.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat and a critic of the White House, praised Mr. Paulson for changing Mr. Bush’s mind. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the Senate banking committee, is also singing “Kumbaya.”

“I’ve watched him grow in the last year, not in terms of intellectual capacity but in his appreciation of how this town works,” says Mr. Dodd.

Then again, in an environment where financiers and public-policy makers have temporarily tried to forge a bipartisan front to address the most severe economic tempest in a generation, few people are willing to speak critically of Mr. Paulson for attribution — recognizing, they say, a need for a nervous public and queasy financial markets to believe that the federal government is in charge, is capable, and knows exactly how to confront the downturn.

“There’s reluctance to be critical because they understand that to be critical would further erode investor confidence and therefore cause the markets to dive deeper,” says James D. Cox, a corporate law professor at the Duke University School of Law. “We are at a point where it’s difficult to determine how much of this is being driven downward by psychology or the excesses of the past working themselves out. Most people think it’s excesses of the past, but they hope no one else realizes that.”

Moreover, Mr. Paulson has especially endeared himself to the denizens of Wall Street by using federal power and the public purse to rescue the financial industry from its own, outsize mistakes and prevent the meltdown from getting out of control.

“He’s saved their bacon,” Mr. Cox says.

Truth be told, Mr. Paulson is not an easy person to stage manage anyway. Colleagues and acquaintances say he can be forceful and candid in his arguments, even if he is sometimes hot-tempered and prone to impulsive table-pounding.

While Mr. Paulson’s weak communication skills make him a notoriously hobbled public speaker, in private he still can be a good listener. “He lacks the fluidity of a Bob Rubin, but he can be very persuasive,” Mr. Dodd says.

For his part, Mr. Paulson has the confidence and self-awareness to cop to some of these faults.

“I’m not an inspirational leader,” he told the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine in 2003. “I’m just not.”

IF Mr. Paulson, 62, has been something of a fish out of water in Washington, he was sometimes that way on Wall Street as well.

(Page 3 of 5)

At Goldman Sachs he didn’t golf or drink, and he often left dinners with senior executives at 8:45 p.m. so he could go to bed. He shunned the Hamptons scene, spending free weekends in Barrington, Ill., where he and his wife, Wendy, built a house in 1974, down the road from his mother, Marianna.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Related
Times Topics: Henry M. Paulson Jr.
Add to Portfolio

* Goldman Sachs Group Incorporated

Go to your Portfolio »

He has impeccable Republican credentials and raised funds for George W. Bush. Friends are quick to point out that both he and Wendy, a Democrat, are ardent bird watchers and environmentalists. (Mr. Paulson, who wanted to be a forest ranger before he chose a financial career, was chairman of the Nature Conservancy until he took the Treasury job.)

He shuns the trappings of great wealth in other ways as well. He donated $100 million of his Goldman stock to a family foundation dedicated to conservation and environmental education and has said he would give the remainder of his fortune, which stood at about $500 million in 2006, to charity when he dies. He told one reporter that he loved his children too much to leave them money.

MR. PAULSON was raised as a Christian Scientist in Barrington, studied English at Dartmouth, landed a Pentagon job, and then worked in the Nixon administration as a liaison to the Treasury and the Commerce Department. After that, he attended Harvard Business School and joined Goldman’s Chicago office as an investment banker after graduating.

He made an early impression.

“He was very smart, he had the best people in corporate finance working on his team — they recognized his talent — and when I went on client visits, the most important business people in Chicago looked to him personally for his advice,” said Stephen Friedman, a former Goldman Sachs chairman who was President Bush’s top economic adviser from 2002 to 2005.

Inside Goldman, Mr. Paulson was known for his bulldog intensity and direct manner. “He used to say that he runs fastest toward problems, and it was true,” said Eric Schwartz, a former Goldman executive who worked closely with Mr. Paulson. “Instead of avoiding conflicts — which is what a lot of managers do — he goes headlong into them.”

In 1999, he snared Goldman’s top job after leading a palace coup to push out Jon Corzine, his co-senior partner. (Mr. Corzine, a Democrat, is now the governor of New Jersey.)

Mr. Paulson presided over Goldman as it successfully made the transition to public company, expanded aggressively into international markets, and shifted from a more advisory-focused business to one that takes more principal risk in trading and investing.

He also defied conventional wisdom among critics and competitors who thought the firm was too small to go it alone. After the repeal of federal laws separating commercial and investment banking in 1999, it was widely accepted that new, sprawling megabanks like Citigroup would crush smaller firms like Goldman.

But Mr. Paulson repositioned the business as one built on superior brainpower and the generation of heady profits through judicious risk-taking. Today, Goldman stands alone as the only bank that has yet to take huge write-downs in the credit crisis.

Goldman, however, was also an integral part of a money-hungry Wall Street culture that helped build, oil and maintain the securitization and derivatives machinery underlying the current mortgage-fueled problems.

Mr. Paulson’s tenure wasn’t without scars. His bluntness — or “brain-to-mouth,” as he has described it — has been a liability at times. In 2002, at an investment conference, he said that 15 percent to 20 percent of the people in each of Goldman’s businesses added 80 percent of the value. It violated Goldman’s cultlike approach to team work. He immediately apologized to all the firm’s employees.

He was also deeply embroiled in the 2003 ouster of the former New York Stock Exchange chairman Richard A. Grasso over complaints about Mr. Grasso’s compensation. And Mr. Paulson sat at Goldman’s helm during the excesses of the dot-com bubble, selling vast numbers of subpar companies that promptly crashed with the market. Goldman wasn’t the worst of the offenders, but it wasn’t an exception either.

WHEN Mr. Bush struggled to right his listing administration in 2006, his chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, a former executive at Goldman Sachs, recruited Mr. Paulson to replace John W. Snow at Treasury.

Neither Mr. Snow nor his immediate predecessor, Paul H. O’Neill, was viewed in Washington as having much clout in the Bush administration — Mr. O’Neill went embarrassingly public with his criticisms after he left office — and Mr. Paulson demanded that he be given the authority they lacked if he were to take the job.

According to administration officials and others close to Mr. Paulson, he asked to be named as the administration’s chief economic official and that he have a direct line to Mr. Bush.

Upon taking office, Mr. Paulson had something of a rude awakening. He said he intended to direct a bipartisan effort to overhaul Social Security and Medicare, but Democrats balked. He tried to improve economic relations with China but met with limited success. Although the Chinese let their currency appreciate in value, they continued to resist opening their markets to American goods, services and investments.

Meanwhile, the financial crisis has swirled around the White House in ever more violent waves. But each sign of economic trouble brought assurances from regulators, Mr. Paulson and others in the Bush administration that the housing sector was experiencing a “correction” or a “repricing of risk” that would work its way through the system without throwing the economy into a steep downturn. Each assurance soon ran aground as more bad economic news poured in.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Related
Times Topics: Henry M. Paulson Jr.
Add to Portfolio

* Goldman Sachs Group Incorporated

Go to your Portfolio »

At the same time, Mr. Paulson began echoing the line of many in the financial industry that the real problem facing Wall Street was a welter of cumbersome regulations.

Warning that private equity firms and others were raising capital in markets outside the United States, Mr. Paulson said in November 2006 that although he had no wish to lift regulations altogether, “excessive regulation slows innovation, imposes needless costs on investors and stifles competitiveness and job creation.”

Accordingly, Mr. Paulson set up a presidential working group to come up with a new regulatory blueprint that would simplify if not lift government regulations. What he didn’t anticipate was that the financial crisis would redefine that mandate.

Last fall, he declared that “the ongoing housing correction is not ending as quickly as it might have appeared late last year.” He repeatedly said that the problem wasn’t bad credit but market fears, so he encouraged banks to raise more capital and recommended other forms of financial engineering that didn’t gain traction.

Most notably, he advocated bundling bad loans into off-balance-sheet entities that theoretically would allow banks to improve their financial standing. The plan was a total flop and yet another signal that Mr. Paulson underestimated the severity of the problem.

Another initiative from Mr. Paulson was a program called the Hope Now Alliance, which the administration says has helped hundreds of thousands of homeowners stay in their homes through voluntary renegotiations with banks of mortgage payments.

But the markets weren’t reassured. And then came the heart-stopping events this year, beginning with Bear Stearns and mushrooming into the Fannie and Freddie messes. Treasury has been “reactive and not proactive,” said George Soros, the financier and philanthropist. “You can see it on the compromise on Fannie Mae — it’s a halfway house. It remains part of the problem instead of becoming part of the solution.”

Some associates of Mr. Paulson say he is handicapped by a lack of a strong bench at Treasury, although government analysts consider the caliber of the midlevel professionals there to be high.

Mr. Paulson wound up relying more in the current crisis on Robert K. Steel, a former Goldman executive who left Treasury abruptly earlier this month to become chief executive at Wachovia Bank.

Although there has been speculation that Mr. Steel’s departure hinged on a failure to grasp the problems at Fannie and Freddie and keep Mr. Paulson more fully apprised, people close to the situation at Treasury strongly deny that. Rather, they say, Mr. Steel left in part because he realized he wasn’t going to be promoted to a deputy position at Treasury.

Mr. Steel says that he and Mr. Paulson foresaw the economic and housing problems much earlier than they are given credit for, and that they made early forays to reform Fannie and Freddie.

“When Hank came to Washington, he went to the president and said we’d had a long period of time with no disruptions in the marketplace, and that there was a lot of dry tinder out there,” Mr. Steel recalls in an interview. “I think it’s pretty amazing that in August of ’06, he began to prepare for financial challenges.” Executives close to Mr. Paulson say the administration, including Mr. Steel, were stunned by the magnitude of Fannie’s and Freddie’s internal financial problems.

Mr. Paulson says he was not late to the game. “I’ve had a number of people say to me, ‘You should have pushed this harder earlier.’ And I almost don’t get it. Because I came down here and from the day I showed up in Washington I looked at that problem; there is no doubt there is systemic risk,” he said when speaking at The New York Times last week. “The idea of working hard to get a regulator with powers to address some of these systemic issues is important.”
Page 5 of 5)

Nonetheless, earlier this year Mr. Paulson’s hopes for reform consisted mostly of enhanced oversight of Fannie and Freddie. That effort also ran into Congressional opposition and demands that the two agencies expand their lending activities.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Related
Times Topics: Henry M. Paulson Jr.
Add to Portfolio

* Goldman Sachs Group Incorporated

Go to your Portfolio »

Mr. Paulson’s associates say that he has also been frustrated at how hard it has been to convince the White House and other parts of the administration that quick action was essential in the Bear Stearns and Fannie and Freddie debacles.

The Bear Stearns crisis happened so fast that Mr. Paulson didn’t bother following inter-agency protocols and simply briefed Mr. Bush and two top aides on the matter.

The Treasury chief has also tried to avoid overstating or understating the dangers ahead.

“I think we’ll be dealing with the housing issue in one way or another for months, maybe years after I’ve left,” he said at The Times. But he added that the “biggest part” of the crisis will be “largely over by year-end” and that progress “isn’t in a straight line.”

Mr. Paulson has quietly tried to tell members of Congress that the whole world is watching how America deals with its housing problems, including Fannie and Freddie. Even so, he is quick to say how uncomfortable he is overseeing a huge, government-led intervention in the financial industry.

“I would rather not be in the position of asking for extraordinary authorities to support” Fannie and Freddie, Mr. Paulson said during a speech at the New York Public Library. “But I am playing the hand that I have been dealt.”

Some on Wall Street welcome his response. “He’s done a spectacular job balancing free-market ideology with strong government actions,” said Thomas Nides, chief administrative officer at Morgan Stanley and a Washington veteran. “And as a Democrat that’s not an easy thing to say. He’s a Republican and a free market guy — but he’s not making decisions based purely on ideology.”

All of which is why Mr. Paulson has been working overtime to try to contain the financial mess. What the White House isn’t publicly emphasizing is that overseas governments and investors hold a considerable amount of securities guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. If they sell off those securities it could spark a huge market disruption.

To that end, backing up Fannie and Freddie is imperative, says Mr. Paulson.

“The credit facility is like a lender of last resort and what I believe Congress wants to do — will want to do — is to increase the confidence in our capital markets and in these organizations,” he said at the Times meeting, discussing the proposed rescue package for the mortgage giants. “It will be used as a last resort and it will be used to protect the taxpayer.”

USA: Déficit Fiscal récord en Estados Unidos

Déficit récord en Estados Unidos
Redacción BBC Mundo

El déficit presupuestario de Estados Unidos en 2009 será de casi US$500.000 millones, una cifra más elevada de la que había pronosticado la Casa Blanca.

Jim Nussle, director del presupuesto de la Casa Blanca
El anuncio fue hecho por el director del presupuesto de la Casa Blanca, Jim Nussle.
El déficit presupuestario mide entre octubre y septiembre -año fiscal de EE.UU.- la diferencia entre lo que el gobierno gasta y lo que recauda a través de impuestos.

Para quien sea el próximo presidente las cifras en rojo representarán un gran desafío.

Tanto el candidato republicano John McCain como el demócrata Barack Obama verán sus programas económicos limitados por esta realidad.


El país no puede seguir gastando sin tener ingresos y pidiendo préstamos mundialmente no es la solución
Marcos Kerbell, profesor de finanzas, FIU

Marcos Kerbell, profesor adjunto de finanzas de la Universidad Internacional de la Florida (FIU, por sus siglas en inglés), dijo a BBC Mundo que el nuevo mandatario heredará una situación sombría.

"Va a tener que tomar medidas rápidas y urgentes tan pronto llegue al poder para tratar de evitar una inflación", calculó el profesor Kerbell. "El país no puede seguir gastando sin tener ingresos y pidiendo préstamos mundialmente no es la solución".

No incluye la guerra

El déficit de US$482.000 millones que pronostica el gobierno representaría alrededor de 3% del Producto Interno Bruto estadounidense que, en términos porcentuales, está por debajo de los déficits experimentados en las décadas de los 80 y 90.

Pero este cálculo no incluye el costo de las guerras en Irak y Afganistán, además de estar acolchonado por los superávits acumulados en el fondo del seguro social, que pronto se convertirá en déficit en la próxima década.

No en vano los aspirantes a la presidencia de EE.UU. están volcando su atención a la emergencia económica y lo que podría convertirse en la "tormenta perfecta".

"Todo se les está complicando. Van a tener muchos problemas que resolver al mismo tiempo", explica el profesor Marcos Kerbell.

Lea: Senado de EE.UU. aprueba ley de rescate

"Está el gasto de la guerra, la desaceleración económica anclada en la crisis inmobiliaria, la reforma al sistema de salud pública, la educación".

El catedrático de FIU dice que el próximo gobierno va tener que tomar una decisión muy firme con respecto a la guerra que, según él, ha "desangrado al país de vidas humanas y de finanzas".

"Hay ciertos programas que no son beneficiosos o productivos para la nación y uno de ellos es la guerra. Ésta está durando más de lo presupuestado y costando más que Vietnam", expresó.


Si la economía no anda bien, las compañías van a mostrar pérdidas y no sólo no van a pagar más impuestos sino que van a pedir créditos por años anteriores
Marcos Kerbell, profesor de finanzas, FIU

El nuevo presidente tendrá que encontrar un equilibrio entre la recaudación de más impuestos - un tema muy delicado para los votantes - y no efectuar muchos gastos que puedan incrementar el déficit.

Pero el profesor Kerbell asegura que no tendrá otra opción que aumentar el recaudo.

"Una de las leyes que se va a tener que revisar a más tardar 2009 es la ley de herencia que expira en 2010", dijo.

Por otra parte es necesario que las compañías ganen dinero para que puedan pagar impuestos sobre sus ganancias netas.

"Pero si la economía no anda bien, las compañías van a mostrar pérdidas y no sólo no van a pagar más impuestos sino que van a pedir créditos por años anteriores", concluyó.

Estímulos

Como una economía lenta genera menos impuestos, el gobierno de George W. Bush lanzó un plan para entregar pagos a 130 millones de familias para impulsar el consumo.

Al mismo tiempo está el paquete de rescate de gran escala de las empresas hipotecarias Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac, garantizado en le proyecto de ley recién aprobado en el Congreso.

Son programas que podrían estimular la economía para generar los ingresos fiscales que necesita el gobierno, pero al mismo tiempo son costosos y necesariamente implican más presión sobre el déficit.

PERU:Alan García: dos años, varias paradojas,BBC

Lunes, 28 de julio de 2008 - 19:28 GMT

Alan García: dos años, varias paradojas

Redacción BBC Mundo

Alan García, presidente de Perú
Una celebración con un gusto agridulce.
El presidente de Perú, Alan García, celebra este lunes dos años de gobierno en medio de una contradicción que los analistas coinciden en señalar: su bajísimo índice de popularidad a pesar de la bonanza económica que vive el país.

Muchos creen encontrar la respuesta a esa paradoja en un problema que arrastra Perú desde antes del gobierno de García y que dista de estar resuelto: la pobreza todavía afecta a casi el 40% de la población.

Lo cierto es que al revisar la situación del país a la luz de la gestión de García, no dejan de sorprender no sólo ésta sino otras contradicciones más.

PROSPERIDAD Y POBREZA

El Perú de Alan García sigue la tendencia -una bonanza económica que gozan pocos- parecida a la de su antecesor Alejandro Toledo.

Protestas en Perú
Los peruanos reclaman una mejor distribución de la riqueza.
Se estima que la economía peruana crecerá este año casi un 8%. La calificadora de riesgo Standard & Poor's la considera una de las más sólidas y seguras de América Latina, al nivel de Brasil, México y Chile.

La inversión privada alcanza un 25% del PIB, las reservas netas -con US$35.600- están a un nivel histórico y el Banco Central dice que el superávit fiscal del primer semestre superó en 90% el de igual período de 2007.

Lea: Las dos caras del 'boom' peruano

La balanza comercial registra un saldo positivo de unos US$8.000 millones, con la industria minera como uno de los principales motores de la economía (Perú es el segundo productor mundial de cobre y zinc).

Sin embargo, los sindicatos aducen que las ganancias de las empresas no llegan equitativamente a los trabajadores. El producto de este descontento se traduce en huelgas y movilizaciones que no han dado demasiado respiro a Alan García.

Su gobierno, en tanto, esgrime como uno de sus grandes logros haber reducido la pobreza en unos pocos dígitos.

Aún así, en algunas zonas del país, el número de pobres alcanza el 90% de la población.

Lea: Perú: la pobreza, eje del debate

INFLACIÓN Y POPULARIDAD

Según una encuesta realizada recientemente por la empresa Ipsos Apoyo, sólo el 26% de los peruanos aprueba el gobierno de Alan García.

Alejandro Toledo, ex presidente de Perú
El cuadro del Perú de García no es muy diferente al de Toledo.

Además de la distribución desigual de la riqueza, el otro factor de mayor descontento es la inflación, que llegó a un 6%, casi el doble de lo que el gobierno proyectaba para el último año.

Sin embargo, ese índice -reflejo en gran medida del aumento de los precios internacionales de combustible y alimentos- es uno de los más bajos de América Latina y casi no puede compararse a los más de dos millones de puntos porcentuales de inflación que el mismo García terminó su primera presidencia (1985-1990).

Paradójicamente, y a pesar de la crisis económica de ese período, la popularidad de García de entonces superaba con creces a la de ahora.

Lea: De la inflación a la cautela

Y, a pesar del bajo apoyo popular que parece tener García, los memoriosos recuerdan que llega a superar al de Alejandro Toledo, al que las encuestas le daban a dos años de su gobierno sólo un 12% de opiniones favorables de los ciudadanos.

Incluso el mismo Toledo, al evaluar la gestión de García, dijo que el peor impuesto para los pobres es la inflación.

"Es muy peligroso gobernar sólo para los ricos", dijo el ex mandatario, que además sugirió que un presidente con baja popularidad debería retirarse del poder.

EL MERCADO Y LA METAMORFOSIS

Si algo queda claro de estos dos años de gobierno de Alan García es que su visión actual de la política y la economía es -si no opuesta- bastante distinta a la de su primera presidencia.

Alan García toma juramento a su ministro de Economía, Luis Valdivieso
Valdivieso, un veterano del FMI, asumió el ministerio de Economía.
En efecto, algunos llegan a hablar de la "metamorfosis" del líder de la Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA), convertido ahora en un ferviente promotor del libre mercado.

No sólo es un incansable defensor de la inversión privada.

Quien en el pasado se definía como antiimperialista, se resistía a pagar la deuda externa y tenía todos los gestos de un líder populista, plantea ahora como logros la ratificación del tratado de libre comercio con Estados Unidos y califica de "retrógrado" al modelo político y económico del presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez.

Quien en el pasado llegó a pelearse con el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI), este mes designó como su ministro de Economía a Luis Valdivieso, precisamente un veterano del FMI, cuya asunción fue aplaudida por Wall Street y los inversionistas internacionales.

Y como si no hubiera contradicciones suficientes, la agencia de noticias norcoreana KCNA informó este lunes que el presidente de la asamblea de la República Democrática del Pueblo, Kim Yong-nam, envió un saludo al mandatario peruano en el aniversario de su gobierno.

En la carta -dice la agencia- le desea éxitos en sus esfuerzos por consolidar la estabilidad de su país, desarrollar la economía y aumentar los niveles de vida de la población.

FUJIMORI Y LA FELICIDAD

Además de huelgas, movilizaciones y un terremoto, a Alan García le tocó lidiar también con la extradición desde Chile del ex presidente Alberto Fujimori, sentado ahora en el banquillo de la justicia peruana.

Lea: Perú cierra jornada de huelga general

A pesar de que el régimen de Fujimori le significó a García vivir ocho años en el exilio, fue precisamente una alianza entre el oficialismo y el grupo fujimorista la que permitió que los legisladores de García consiguieran este sábado la jefatura del Congreso.

Alberto Fujimori, ex presidente de Perú
Fujimori, después de Vargas Llosa, el más admirado por los peruanos.
La alianza da un poco de aire al Partido Aprista en un Parlamento donde no tiene mayoría.

Pero las contradicciones no parecen ser dominio exclusivo de la clase política en Perú. Así se infiere de una encuesta del Instituto de Opinión Pública de la Pontificia Universidad Católica, referida entre otras cosas a la percepción de la felicidad.

A pesar de los altos índices de pobreza, el 66% de los peruanos entrevistados en 14 provincias, dijo sentirse muy feliz. Pero cuando se les preguntó de la felicidad de sus connacionales, un 80% dijo que los demás peruanos o son infelices o son poco felices.

A la hora de hablar sobre las características de la sociedad, el 56% pidió practicar más el valor de la honestidad.

Sin embargo, en la lista de los peruanos vivos más admirados, Fujimori -acusado de corrupción y abuso a los derechos humanos- aparece en el segundo puesto.

Pourquoi la BCE déteste l’inflation,BARCLAYS BANK

Pourquoi la BCE déteste l’inflation

La décision de la Banque Centrale Européenne de relever ses taux directeurs début juillet a provoqué de vifs débats. Alors que certains plaident pour une baisse des taux, l’autorité monétaire européenne met en avant les risques de dérapage inflationniste. Mais au fait, pourquoi l’inflation est-elle si grave pour l’économie ?


L’inflation est de retour. En mai dernier, selon l’Insee, les prix ont augmenté de 3,3% (sur un an) en France, soit la hausse la plus importante depuis juillet 1991. Dans la zone euro, l’inflation a même atteint 4% en juin. Comme on le voit, le mouvement s’accélère depuis le début 2008. Une flambée des prix qui a finalement incité la Banque Centrale Européenne (BCE) à intervenir début juillet. Pour casser la spirale inflationniste, l’autorité monétaire de Francfort a relevé de 0,25% son taux directeur qui influence directement les taux d’intérêt à court terme. Son objectif ? Réduire la demande de crédit et donc la consommation, ce qui aurait pour effet de ralentir l’économie et de relâcher les tensions sur les prix. En prenant le problème à bras-le-corps, la BCE entend également envoyer un signal fort aux consommateurs et aux salariés afin qu’ils n’anticipent pas une accélération de l’inflation et n’adaptent leurs comportements en conséquence. Dans ce registre, la BCE craint principalement les revendications salariales. Les banquiers centraux gardent en mémoire la spirale inflationniste des années 1970 : les salaires, indexés sur les prix, augmentaient pour compenser l’inflation, alourdissaient les coûts de production des entreprises, contraintes à leur tour de majorer leurs prix de vente… et d’alimenter l’inflation. Un véritable cercle vicieux.


Déstabilisation de l’économie

En effet, l’inflation déstabilise l’économie. Elle pèse très directement sur le pouvoir d’achat des ménages comme en témoigne la hausse récente des prix du pétrole et des produits alimentaires. Elle est pénalisante pour la bourse car elle rend très difficile l’évaluation des actifs des entreprises. Enfin, elle s’accompagne généralement d’une hausse des taux d’intérêt, elle-même problématique : au loyer « normal » de l’argent (la rémunération de celui qui prête) s’ajoute une « prime d’inflation » puisque le prêteur risque d’être remboursé en monnaie de singe. Et si cette hausse des taux n’est pas suffisante pour compenser l’envolée des prix (on parle alors de « taux réels négatifs »), les épargnants s’appauvrissent : la rémunération de leurs placements, même dopée par des taux plus élevés, ne suffit plus à couvrir la perte de pouvoir d’achat de leur capital, érodé par l’inflation. Bref, pour beaucoup, l’inflation est considérée comme le mal absolu en économie.

Pour conjurer ce mal, la BCE n’a guère d’autre arme à sa disposition que de remonter les taux d’intérêt très tôt, avant que la spirale inflationniste ne s’enclenche. Elle s’inspire ainsi des pratiques de la banque centrale allemande après le choc pétrolier des années 1970. Celle-ci avait été une des rares à relever très tôt ses taux directeurs pour contrer les anticipations inflationnistes. Une politique payante : l’Allemagne avait mieux que les autres pays réussi à éviter le dérapage des prix.


Risques pour la croissance

Mais les détracteurs de la BCE estiment ce geste inutile. Ils soulignent que l’inflation provient surtout de la hausse du prix du pétrole et des matières premières contre laquelle la banque centrale ne peut rien. Or, elle ne s’est guère diffusée aux autres secteurs de l’économie. Pire, cette hausse de taux intervient à un moment où la croissance ralentit déjà très fortement en Europe. Du coup, la conjoncture se charge, elle-même, de ralentir la demande et dissuade les salariés de revendiquer des hausses de salaire. Selon certains économistes, il aurait même été préférable de baisser les taux d’intérêt dans la zone euro afin d’affaiblir la monnaie européenne. En effet, si les placements en euros sont moins rémunérés, les investisseurs se reporteront spontanément sur les placements en dollars. Le billet vert aura alors tendance à s’apprécier par rapport à la monnaie européenne, ce qui rendra les produits européens plus compétitifs sur le marché mondial et limitera la hausse du pétrole. Car aujourd’hui, on remarque que le cours du baril se calme quand le dollar monte et s’envole quand le billet vert s’affaiblit.


L’épargne mieux rémunérée

Toutefois, le geste de la BCE peut réjouir les épargnants car il assure à leurs placements de court terme un rendement pour l’instant encore supérieur à l’inflation, et préserve donc le pouvoir d’achat de leur capital. Il contribue, par exemple, à la hausse probable des taux du Livret A et du Livret développement durable (indexés également sur l’inflation) au 1er août prochain, soutient les performances des sicav monétaires, directement liées au niveau des taux court terme sur les marchés financiers. En revanche, la hausse du taux directeur de la BCE est pénalisante pour les emprunteurs. Ceux qui ont déjà souscrit des prêts révisables indexés sur ces taux risquent en effet de voir grimper un peu plus le coût de leurs remboursements. Et ceux qui sollicitent aujourd’hui un crédit, même à taux fixe, le paient plus cher. Les prêts à taux fixe suivent en effet les taux à long terme, qui sont aussi montés ces derniers mois en raison de l’inflation et de la réaction de la BCE.

ENTREVISTAS TV CRISIS GLOBAL

NR.: Director, no presidente ---------------------------------------------- Bruno Seminario 1 ------------------------- Bruno Seminario 2 -------------------- FELIX JIMENEZ 1 FELIZ JIMENEZ 2 FELIX JIMENEZ 3, 28 MAYO OSCAR DANCOURT,ex presidente BCR ------------------- Waldo Mendoza, Decano PUCP economia ---------------------- Ingeniero Rafael Vasquez, parlamentario 24 set recordando la crisis, ver entrevista en diario

Etiquetas

Peru:crisis impacto regional arequipa,raul mauro

Temas CRISIS FINANCIERA GLOBAL

QUIEN SOY?
claves para pensar la crisis

MATERIAS PRIMAS
-Metales
-Cobre
- plata
- oro
- zinc
- plomo
- niquel
- petroleo

-Tipo de cambio

- LA CRISIS

- BOLSA VALORES
- BANCOS
- PBI PAISES
- USA: DEFICIT GEMELOS
- UE: RIEN NE VA PLUS

CONTAGIO: CANALES

- PERU: DIAGRAMA DE CONTAGIO
- PERU: IMPACTO EN BOLSA
- MEXICO: HAY CRISIS?

LA PRENSA
COMENTARIO DE HOY

- DIARIOS DE HOY
NLACES

Coyuntura
Bancos centrales
Paginas Recomendadas

BLOGS

economiques
Interes

VIDEO

- Economia videos
- Crisis financiera global

TRICONTINENTAL

- AFRICA: daniel
- EUROPA: helene
- ASIA:
- AMERICA

COLUMNAS AMIGAS

Chachi Sanseviero

ETIQUETAS
por frecuencia de temas
por alfabetico

EVENTOS

FOTOS DEL PERU

GONZALO EN LA RED

JOBS
VOZ ME CONVERTIDOR
CLIMA
SUDOKU
PICADURAS

LOGO

LIBRO de GONZALO

La exclusion en el Peru

-Presentacion

- introduccion

- contexo economico

- crisis de la politica

- excluidos de las urbes

- excluidos andinos

- contratapa

VIDEOS ECONOMICOS
Crisis Enero 2009
Krugman
Globalizacion 1
Globalizacion 2
Crisis Brasil
Crisis bancaire
Karl marx revient

TODOS LOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS

GOOGLE INFORMA


PRESS CLIPPINGS-RECORTES PRENSA-PRESSE..

ETIQUETAS alfabetico