INFORMALITY

http://www.voxeu.org/article/rethinking-informality

Who Wins and Who Loses

A Short History of Bubblenomics

By MIKE WHITNEY
Assets bubbles require massive amounts of leverage. But too much leverage can destabilize the system, so it needs to be regulated. But Wall Street doesn't like restrictions on leverage because it can make more money by borrowing like crazy, inflating a ginormous bubble, skimming off the profits, and cashing in before the crash. So, the Fed ignores Wall Street's "gearing" operations and pretends not to see what's going on. It becomes a bubble "enabler" by lowering interest rates, easing credit and waving-off tighter regulations. It's all part of the game. The Fed works to help its core constituents while everyone else is put at risk.
But there's another reason for bubbles, too. Stagnation is a chronic problem in mature capitalist economies. As businesses become more efficient in their various widget-making operations, demand for their products drops off making it harder for owners to find profitable outlets for investment. And when investment starts to flag, then grip of economic inertia begins to tighten. As author Robert Skidelsky says, "investment fills the gap between production and consumption", so when investment hits a speed-bump, spending starts to wither and the economy slows to a crawl.
The Fed's remedy: Zero rates, easy money and more bubbles; Professor Bernanke's one-size-fits-all, magic elixir for sclerotic economies. In other words, the emerging stock and commodities bubbles are not a sign that the Fed is flubbing the policy. Bubbles are the policy, and have been for a very long time. Bernanke is no fool. He knows that each business cycle is weaker than the last, creating fewer jobs, more slack in the economy, and more anemic growth. His job is to endlessly tweak the process in order to maintain profitability for the people at the top of the economic foodchain, his real bosses.
Here's a clip from an interview with history professor Robert Brenner who sums it up perfectly:
Robert Brenner:

"... Economic forecasters have underestimated how bad the current crisis is because they have over-estimated the strength of the real economy and failed to take into account the extent of its dependence upon a buildup of debt that relied on asset price bubbles. In the U.S., during the recent business cycle of the years 2001-2007, GDP growth was by far the slowest of the postwar epoch. There was no increase in private sector employment. The increase in plants and equipment was about a third of the previous, a postwar low. Real wages were basically flat. There was no increase in median family income for the first time since World War II. Economic growth was driven entirely by personal consumption and residential investment, made possible by easy credit and rising house prices. Economic performance was weak, even despite the enormous stimulus from the housing bubble and the Bush administration's huge federal deficits. Housing by itself accounted for almost one-third of the growth of GDP and close to half of the increase in employment in the years 2001-2005. It was, therefore, to be expected that when the housing bubble burst, consumption and residential investment would fall, and the economy would plunge." ("Overproduction not Financial Collapse is the Heart of the Crisis", Robert P. Brenner speaks with Jeong Seong-jin, Asia Pacific Journal)

Sound familiar? Flat wages, weak demand, slow growth and more and more debt? All signs of an aging, hobbled system that's slipping inexorably into stagnation. This is why the Fed adopted its present policy of bubblemaking, because the only way to avoid stagnation is by increasing the debt-load. Authors John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff traced the origins of the policy back to the 1970s. They revealed what their findings in an article in The Monthly Review titled "Financial Implosion and Stagnation". Here's an excerpt:

"It was the reality of economic stagnation beginning in the 1970s, as heterodox economists Riccardo Bellofiore and Joseph Halevi have recently emphasized, that led to the emergence of "the new financialized capitalist regime," a kind of "paradoxical financial Keynesianism" whereby demand in the economy was stimulated primarily "thanks to asset-bubbles." Moreover, it was the leading role of the United States in generating such bubbles—despite (and also because of) the weakening of capital accumulation proper—together with the dollar's reserve currency status, that made U.S. monopoly-finance capital the "catalyst of world effective demand," beginning in the 1980s. But such a financialized growth pattern was unable to produce rapid economic advance for any length of time, and was unsustainable, leading to bigger bubbles that periodically burst, bringing stagnation more and more to the surface.
A key element in explaining this whole dynamic is to be found in the falling ratio of wages and salaries as a percentage of national income in the United States. Stagnation in the 1970s led capital to launch an accelerated class war against workers to raise profits by pushing labor costs down. The result was decades of increasing inequality." ("Financial Implosion and Stagnation", John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, Monthly Review)

Foster and Magdoff do a fine job of explaining how the system has been rejiggered to overcome stagnation. Financial assets provide a place where surplus capital can go and grow via paper profits. But this type of investment does not add to productive capacity or real wealth; it merely enlarges the amount of money capital while creating the means for transferring wealth from one class to another. And that's the point. Every burst bubble thrusts middle class households further and further into the red, while bank moguls and Wall Street tycoons get even richer. It is all by design, nothing is left to chance.
It might surprise you to know that the Fed has become so skilled at bubble-making, that the condition of the underlying economy doesn't really matter any more. By fixing interest rates below the rate of inflation and attaching a liquidity-tailpipe to the stock market (QE2), the Fed has been able engineer a boom in equities, while the so-called "real" economy languishes in a near-Depression. In fact, consumer credit is actually shrinking (excluding student loans) while margin debt (the amount that speculators borrow to buy stocks) continues to soar. This is an astonishing development. The Fed has created a bifurcated market where bankers and hedge fund managers are able to rake in billions off their gaming operations while 300 million working Americans remain mired in debt.
But there are a few drawbacks to the Fed's policy. After all, one can only hollow out the economy for so long before the society begins to unravel. But, unfortunately, widening inequality and destitution don't show up in GDP, which continues to balloon even while working people slip further into debt. What's missing in the GDP-readings is the fact that we are getting poorer as a nation and weaker as an economic force in the world. Here's how Rob Arnott of Research Affiliates summed it up in an article in Fortune magazine:

"We are, in a word, considerably poorer than we imagine – something politicians of all stripes should, but probably won't, consider as they grapple with our massive deficit. GDP that stems from new debt — mainly deficit spending — is phony: it is debt-financed consumption, not prosperity," Arnott writes. "Net of deficit spending, our prosperity is nearly unchanged from 1998, 13 years ago."...
"Instead of the financial world being the lubricant for business, they are out there manufacturing products with no utility whatsoever except for generating fees," he said. "Somebody's got to do something about Wall Street. It is destroying the country." ("Lost decade? We've already had one, Fortune)

The growth we see in rising GDP is mainly "attributable to debt-financed spending, rather than real wealth creation." Indeed, Bernanke is merely leveraging his way out of a Depression. But the calamitous downstream effects of the policy are obvious; the middle class is being decimated, the dollar is getting hammered, and the productive sectors of the economy are being cannibalized. These are the failures of bubblemaking, a theory whose sole purpose is to further enrich a tiny segment of the population that's already as rich as Croesus.
But the Fed is not the worst offender in this regard. The real problem is the banks.
The Fed can induce spending by lowering interest rates, easing credit or buying bonds, but the banks do the heavy lifting. That's where the zillions in leverage are created via off-balance sheets operations, repo transactions and derivatives contracts. These asset-pumping operations remain largely concealed from the public, so no one really knows what's going on. That's why the connection between money supply and financial asset prices is so tenuous and misleading, because the banks create money that doesn't appear in the data. That's what off-balance sheets operations are all about. They generate unknown amounts of credit which stimulates activity, but remains invisible. The printing presses have essentially been handed over to private industry. Here's how it all works according to Independent Strategy's David Roche

"The reason for the exponential growth in credit, but not in broad money, was simply that banks didn't keep their loans on their books any more – and only loans on bank balance sheets get counted as money. Now, as soon as banks made a loan, they "securitized" it and moved it off their balance sheet.
There were two ways of doing this. One was to sell the securitized loan as a bond. The other was "synthetic" securitization: for example, using derivatives to get rid of the default risk (with credit default swaps) and lock in the interest rate due on the loan (with interest-rate swaps). Both forms of securitization meant that the lending bank was free to make new loans without using up any of its lending capacity once its existing loans had been "securitized."
So, to redefine liquidity under what I call New Monetarism, one must add, to the traditional definition of broad money, all the credit being created and moved off banks' balance sheets and onto the balance sheets of nonbank financial intermediaries. This new form of liquidity changed the very nature of the credit beast. What now determined credit growth was risk appetite: the readiness of companies and individuals to run their businesses with higher levels of debt." ("The Global Money Machine", David Roche, Wall Street Journal)

The Fed is not the main culprit in this new paradigm where banks and shadow banks stealthily add to the money supply without any oversight. The problem is the lack of regulation. There needs to be strictly enforced guidelines on the amount of leverage a bank can use and--more importantly--any financial institution that acts like a bank must be regulated like a bank. (Dodd-Frank reforms don't fix this problem.)
The present system is doomed because it depends on the willingness of bankers to behave ethically when all the incentives are pulling them in the opposite direction. The rewards for gouging the public are just too great to resist. All one has to do is lend tons of money to people who can't repay the debt, sell those same loans to investors looking for higher yield, skim-off the profits in stock options and bonuses, and find a safe place when the bubble bursts. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The IMF released a report last week that confirms this basic theory. The report aptly titled "A Fistful of Dollars" shows how the worst offenders deployed their lobbyists to ease regulations in order to legalize the type of sleight-of-hand that triggered the crash. Here's an excerpt:

"We find that lobbying was associated with more risk-taking during 2000-07 and with worse outcomes in 2008. In particular, lenders lobbying more intensively on issues related to mortgage lending and securitization (i) originated mortgages with higher loan-to-income ratios, (ii) securitized a faster growing proportion of their loans, and (iii) had faster growing originations of mortgages. Moreover, delinquency rates in 2008 were higher in areas where lobbying lenders' mortgage lending grew faster. These lenders also experienced negative abnormal stock returns during the rescue of Bear Stearns and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but positive abnormal returns when the bailout was announced. Finally, we find a higher bailout probability for lobbying lenders. These findings suggest that lending by politically active lenders played a role in accumulation of risks and thus contributed to the financial crisis......
CONCLUSION
.....We carefully construct a database at the lender level combining information on loan characteristics and lobbying expenditures on laws and regulations related to mortgage lending and securitization. We show that lenders that lobby more intensively on these specific issues engaged in riskier lending practices ex ante, suffered from worse outcomes ex post, and benefited more from the bailout program."
("A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis", Deniz Igan, Prachi Mishra, and Thierry Tressel, Research Department, IMF

There it is in black and white. The bankers gamed the system and raked in trillions, all according to plan. Not surprisingly, they used their political clout to create a safety net for themselves (TARP) when the bubble burst, while everyone else watched as their retirement savings and home equity went up in smoke.
There's no disputing that massive leverage played a critical role in the crash of '08. Nor is there any doubt that hawking mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and other garbage assets (CDOs, ABS) to credulous investors was the main vehicle for executing the heist. So, why hasn't the Fed acknowledged its mistakes and stepped up its supervision of the banks? Is Bernanke so "captured" by Wall Street that he'd rather see another meltdown than take steps to reign in leverage? That seems to be the case.
Here's how Bernanke responded to Keith Ellison, when the congressman explicitly warned Bernanke of "excessive leverage" that had reached "stratospheric levels" putting the entire system in danger.
Bernanke: "The Board's authority and flexibility in establishing capital requirements, including leverage requirements, have been key to the Board's ability to require additional capital where needed based on a banking organization's risk profile...
We note that in other contexts, statutorily prescribed minimum leverage ratios have not necessarily served prudential regulators of financial institutions well." ("Excessive Leverage Helped Cause the Great Depression and the Current Crisis ... And Government Responds by Encouraging MORE Leverage", Washington's blog)
"Minimum leverage ratios" will not make the system safer and more stable?!? You gotta be kidding me?
This is Bernanke's way of saying that he understands the risks, but plans to do nothing.
But, why?
Because Bernanke's job is to assure that Wall Street's massive looting operation continues apace. That's Job#1. And, while "systemic instability" may be a concern, it's largely irrelevant. Maintaining profitability for uber-rich speculators takes precedent over everything else. That's the way Bubblenomics is designed to work.

__._,_.___

What are the social implications of economic collapse?

by Simon Black · View Comments

June 14, 2011
New York City
For the last few days, we've been having an important discussion about the magnitude of the economic challenges in the west; if you didn't read yesterday's letter, I really encourage you to do so before proceeding because it's important to understand why the west has truly passed the point of no return.
Simply put, the United States and much of Europe are borrowing an extraordinary amount of money now just to pay interest on the money they've already borrowed. They cannot even self-fund their mandatory entitlement programs without going into the hole, and their options are limited:
Option 1: Continue borrowing, keep the party going.
As long as the government CAN do this, they WILL do this.  Regardless of their intentions, though, more debt only worsens the situation, creating higher borrowing costs in the long run, and even more debt. As this happens, the pool of buyers begins to dry up, especially from overseas.
Option 2: Inflation
The more buyers stop purchasing Treasury securities, the more the Federal Reserve will mop up the excess liquidity. In doing so, the Fed essentially conjures up money and loans it to the government.
No matter what the government monkey statistics say, this is inflationary, plain and simple. The more money they print, the greater the level of inflation in the long-term. Meanwhile, as foreigners simultaneously reduce their US dollar holdings, this inflation will become more acutely felt in the US.
Option 3: Austerity
There's going to come a time when the US government is forced to face its economic reality and make some incredibly deep cuts that would be felt across society, from Wall Street and the military industrial complex to project housing on the other side of the tracks.
Option 4: Default
Eventually, the debt burden is simply going to be too much, and the most obvious solution will be to default. Politicians will make China out to be the enemy and they will probably invent a war just to have an excuse to default on Chinese owned debt. Americans will wave the flag and celebrate defaulting on their enemies.
Option 5: Economic Cannibalism
In the best traditions of Atlas Shrugged, the government will continue its persecution of the productive class– professionals, investors, entrepreneurs, and skilled workers. Existing taxes will rise, new taxes will be created, trade barriers will be enacted, and a maze of cost prohibitive regulations will be passed.
The first option (keeping the party going) is what has been happening for years. Politicians make small concessions to show they're "serious" about fiscal discipline, cutting laughably small programs while dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into wars and entitlement programs.
The worse the debt situation becomes, though, the higher the borrowing costs become, and the worse the debt situation becomes. It's not an enviable position. Existing lenders will continue backing away from the US Treasury market, giving option 1 a half-life measured in months at best.
In the longer term, only options 2-5 remain: inflation, austerity, default, and cannibalism. Each of these remaining options will shake the financial system to its core. More importantly, each of these has the power to create widespread social upheaval.
When inflation eats away at a family's already meager standard of living, when austerity eliminates the benefits to which recipients have grown accustomed, when default vanquishes a retiree's savings, when high taxes make workers feel like they're just government serfs– this is when the real turmoil will begin:
* Rising crime: devoid of a job or means to support their families, people will turn to crime out of desperation
* Class warfare: with dividing lines drawn between have's vs. have-not's, it will become unpopular and even dangerous to be successful
* Corruption: low-level public service officials will look to supplement their income through bribery and kickbacks
* Black economy: An underground, cash-only (probably gold or foreign currency) economy will emerge with people getting paid in envelopes
* Censorship: Of course they'll blame it on national security, but the idea will be to prevent public disparaging of government policy
* War: The government will need another major event to distract people from the real problems
* Protests/Riots: This is when things turn bloody
* Police state conditions: The government will close ranks and send the cops out to show all the little people who's really in charge
There are a number of other manifestations, and many are already showing signs of emergence. The US and European police states are alive and well. Crime is on the rise.
In Europe, cops are doing battle in the streets with their citizens. Think it can't happen in the US? Remember tanks in the streets during the LA riots? Remember New Orleans? Remember any number of G8/G20 protests?
Here's the bottom line: all you have to do is glance at the headlines to see what happens when you strip people of their livelihood, of their ability to put food on the table for their families.

The US has been able to kick the can down the road with the most blunt social implications simply because the country benefits so much from a US-oriented financial system. This is coming to an end very, very quickly.
As a rule of thumb, the greater the economic distortion, the harder the collapse. The US economy has been in a fantasy world for so long, and when its dominant primacy is yanked away, the collapse will be at freefall speed.
Listen… I'm not talking about the end of the world here, I'm talking about difficult times ahead, and the things that go beyond economics. It's time to face facts and look at how society will change (and has already changed).
Tomorrow, I'd like to write more about what we can do now. Meanwhile, please tell me what you think about this– how do you see society changing from this reset of the financial system?

__._,_.___

irlanda: 100 mil millones salvataje,el pais

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/economia/UE/presiona/Irlanda/acepte/rescate/100000/millones/elpepueco/20101116elpepueco_2/Tes

Ajuste a la Inglesa

Las medidas buscan reducir el déficit, que ascendería a US$ 215 mil millones en 2015:
Inglaterra anuncia segundo plan de austeridad con impuesto a la banca

El gobierno inglés también elevará el IVA y el impuesto a la ganancia de capitales, pero mermará el gravamen a las empresas. A esto se suma un congelamiento en los beneficios sociales.

Gabriela Villalobos S.

Hace sólo algunas semanas el antiguo gobierno inglés, encabezado por Gordon Brown, anunció un plan de austeridad que buscaba ahorrar US$ 107 mil millones hasta 2015.

Pero ayer, la nueva administración -liderada por el conservador David Cameron- dio a conocer medidas adicionales para ahorrar US$ 60 mil millones más en ese período.

Así, el plan de austeridad en su conjunto se convierte en el más severo de los últimos 25 años y reducir el déficit de este país que podría alcanzar los US$ 215 mil millones en 2015.

"(La prioridad) ha sido asegurarnos que las medidas son justas (...), así los más ricos pagarán más que los pobres", dijo el ministro de Hacienda inglés, George Osborne. En su presentación redujo sus estimaciones de crecimiento para este año de 1,3% a 1,2% y para 2011, de 2,6% a 2,3%.

Una de las medidas más polémicas del plan es un impuesto al sector bancario, que busca recaudar US$ 3 mil millones anuales. "Esta fue una crisis que partió en el sector bancario, y el fracaso de las financieras ha significado un costo tremendo para el resto de la sociedad", argumentó Osborne, quien no entregó detalles acerca de esta medida.

Además, se congelarán los salarios de los empleados públicos y los subsidios por hijo, y se reducirá el presupuesto en algunas reparticiones del gobierno. También habrá ajustes tributarios: el IVA se elevará de 17,5% a 20%, pero el impuesto a la ganancia de las empresas se reducirá en un punto porcentual en los próximos cuatro años, hasta llegar al 24%. Al contrario, se elevará el impuesto a la ganancia de capital de 18% a 28%, a los contribuyentes con mayores ingresos.

Según aseguraron en el mercado local, la medida no provocará una salida de grandes flujos de capital desde Inglaterra. "No es tan fácil traspasar capital de un lado a otro. Si lo sacas de ahí, no lo vas a dejar en caja. Y el alza no amerita una decisión de sacar los dineros", comentó Juan Pablo Morales, de WAC Research.

"Los inversionistas están buscando mercados con una situación fiscal más estable, y este plan es una señal de eso", agregó Sebastián Cerda, de CorpResearch.

OBJETIVO

El impuesto a los bancos ingleses recaudaría US$ 3 mil millones anuales.

Bolsas sufren pérdidas

Los planes de austeridad fiscal anunciados ayer en Inglaterra y Japón (que también confirmó alzas de impuestos) aumentaron el temor de que una restricción del gasto público desacelere a la economía global.

El Dow Jones cayó 1,43%, su mayor baja en tres semanas, mientras que en Europa el Ibex retrocedió 0,55%. En Londres, en tanto, el FTSE 100 perdió 0,98%.

Chile tampoco se salvó: el IPSA retrocedió 0,95%, pero en reacción a la noticia del cambio monetario en China, pues se prevé que la apreciación del yuan encarezca los costos para el retail local.

El dólar se fortaleció a nivel global. En Chile subió $1,80, a $532,50.

BNP Paribas Investment Partners: la crisis del euro ha producido oportunidades atractivas en el mercado

Hace 18 meses, BNP Paribas hizo su ingreso oficial al país a través de una alianza con BancoEstado. El mayor banco francés (en cuanto a activos) compró a fines de 2008 el 49% de BancoEstado AGF. Esto fue lo que trajo de visita de Philippe Marchessaux, CEO de BNP Paribas Investment Partners, quien en conversación con "El Mercurio" aseguró que el mercado ofrece hoy atractivas oportunidades de inversión.

-¿Están explorando nuevos negocios en Chile?

"Primero queremos desarrollar nuestra asociación con BancoEstado. Hay mucho espacio para desarrollar el negocio. Estamos desarrollando nuevos productos, aprovechando la experiencia de BancoEstado y de BNP Paribas. En ese contexto, vamos a lanzar un nuevo producto, que se llamará fondo bicentenario".

-Con la crisis del euro, ¿han cambiado las preferencias de los inversionistas chilenos de Fondos Mutuos?

"No veo un cambio grande en esta etapa, porque los clientes chilenos invierten en general en Money Markets, que son activos de bajo riesgo. Por lo tanto, las consecuencias de la crisis del euro están lejos para ellos".

-¿Es diferente en Europa?

"No, porque en Europa entre los clientes no se veía un gran apetito por riesgo, porque acababan de experimentar otra crisis. Sin embargo, es justamente en las crisis donde se generan buenas oportunidades para entrar al mercado. Pero hay temores por la alta incertidumbre y la volatilidad, por eso están esperando".

-¿Es mejor esperar a que baje la volatilidad?

"Lo que siempre recomiendo es no poner todo en activos riesgosos en este momento. Estamos en una crisis, los mercados están bajos, así que hay que invertir. Depende del inversionista, pero si eres muy adverso al riesgo, hay que hacerlo. Lo que recomiendo es si el inversionista quiere tener una cierta exposición al mercado accionario, es ir de a poco. Al principio sólo invertir un tercio de lo que se está dispuesto a apostar en accionarios, y meses después analizar la situación e invertir otro tercio, y así".

"Mi estilo antes era comprar cuando nadie quería entrar al mercado. El riesgo es exponerse en un momento muy temprano, cuando todavía hay espacio de mayores pérdidas en los mercados".

-¿Dónde ve oportunidades?

"Los mercados emergentes se ven atractivos en este minuto. La Zona Euro está muy dañada actualmente, por eso la subponderamos. Al contrario, estamos sobreponderando Estados Unidos, donde la recuperación es más fuerte, y Asia Pacífico y América Latina. Recomendamos renta fija, en particular la deuda corporativa high yield (de alto rendimiento), porque la deuda soberana enfrenta desafíos en Europa. Por eso, en este minuto, la deuda corporativa parece menos riesgosa".

"En Asia Pacífico estamos invirtiendo en Corea, y en América Latina nos gustan Brasil y Chile".

-¿La elevada deuda de la

Zona Euro será el tema principal para los mercados en los próximos años?

"Será uno de los temas centrales. Los mercados están sensibles y sobreexageran, pero enviaron un mensaje cierto y potente a los gobiernos de la región, pidiéndoles que controlaran su deuda. Pero no creo que el Euro explote".

Banques : la Fed pourrait avoir son mot à dire sur les salaires

[ 18/09/09 - 15H52 - AFP ]

La banque centrale américaine (Fed) met au point un projet qui lui permettrait d'avoir son mot à dire sur les politiques salariales des banques afin de décourager la prise de risque excessive et les bonus immérités, selon le Wall Street Journal de vendredi.
"Aux termes d'une proposition (en cours d'élaboration), la Fed pourrait rejeter toute politique de rémunération qui selon elle encourage des salariés d'une banque - des cadres dirigeants aux courtiers et aux responsables de clientèle - à prendre trop de risque", affirme le quotidien des affaires.
Les 25 plus grandes banques du pays seraient particulièrement surveillées, souligne le quotidien, et au total des dizaines de milliers de personnes verraient leur modèle de rémunération examiné par les autorités.
La Fed serait notamment favorable à un système permettant de récupérer des rémunérations calculées sur la base de gains réalisés par des salariés qui se révèleraient provisoires.
"La banque centrale pourrait également exiger qu'une partie plus importante de la rémunération soit proposée sous forme d'actions ou autres schémas à long terme conçus pour ne pas récompenser les performances à court terme", précise le Journal.
Ces informations paraissent à moins d'une semaine de la réunion du sommet des pays riches et émergents du G20 à Pittsburgh (Pennsylvanie, nord-est des Etats-Unis), où la question des primes constituera un sujet important dans les débats.
Jeudi soir les dirigeants de l'Union européenne se sont mis d'accord sur une position commune sur ce thème, et notamment sur une clause prévoyant le remboursement éventuel de ces primes controversées.
"En cas de rémunérations variables élevées, le paiement d'une proportion importante des rémunérations doit être différé et n'intervenir qu'au terme d'un délai approprié" et il "pourrait être annulé lorsque les résultats de la banque connaissent une évolution négative", selon le document européen.

UE: CRISIS NO HA TERMINADO

Tres potencias europeas dicen que la crisis no ha terminado

12:01Para Gran Bretaña, Francia y Alemania, no existe otra alternativa que mantener el estímulo extraordinario.

La crisis económica global no ha terminado y el desempleo subirá en los próximos meses, advirtieron los líderes de Gran Bretaña, Francia y Alemania, antes de un encuentro de ministros del G-20 que se celebra en Londres este fin de semana.

En una carta a sus colegas de la Unión Europea (UE), los jefes de Estado de las tres mayores economías de Europa dijeron que no hay otra alternativa que mantener el estímulo extraordinario por ahora, pero que se deberían hacer planes para, eventualmente, retirarlo en forma coordinada.

“Debemos ser cuidadosos y evitar que se establezca la base de nuevos desequilibrios globales”, escribieron el primer ministro británico Gordon Brown, el presidente francés Nicolas Sarkozy y la canciller alemana Angela Merkel.

“Por lo tanto, debemos trabajar en estrategias de salida que serán implementadas en forma coordinada tan pronto como haya terminado la crisis”, agregaron.

En momentos en que sigue la indignación pública por los excesos del sector financiero, y que el desempleo continúa en ascenso, los líderes también dijeron que los bancos no deben volver a actuar como antes y tendrán que limitar la conducta riesgosa y la cultura de grandes bonos para ejecutivos.

La cumbre de líderes del G-20 en Pittsburgh, escribieron, también debería resultar en normas vinculantes para limitar los bonos excesivos, aunque no había ninguna mención explícita a algún tipo de impuesto adicional, una idea que los franceses ya han considerado en el pasado.

“Nuestros ciudadanos están profundamente perturbados por el resurgimiento de prácticas repudiables, pese a que se ha movilizado dinero de los contribuyentes para apoyar al sector financiero en lo peor de la crisis”, dijo la carta.

Dijeron que los bonos de los bancos deberían ser diferidos a lo largo del tiempo para desalentar el cortoplacismo y estar sujetos a su retención en caso de que las cosas empeoren.

También pidieron a sus ministros de Finanzas, que se reunirán en Londres, que evalúen la posibilidad de reforzar la regulación de bancos sistémicamente importantes y la forma en la que estas instituciones pueden ser liquidadas en caso de ser necesario, sin alterar el sistema financiero.

SALIENDO DEL HUECO

Más temprano en el día, las nuevas proyecciones de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) mostraron que la recesión global está llegando a su fin más rápido de lo estimado pocos meses atrás y que ya podría haber culminado.

El jefe del Banco Central Europeo, Jean-Claude Trichet, dijo también que veía crecientes señales de una estabilización en la recesión en momentos en que el BCE elevó sus pronósticos para la economía después de mantener sus tasas de interés sin cambios a un récord mínimo de 1.0% el jueves.

Los encargados de las políticas monetarias se han visto sorprendidos por los datos mejores de lo esperado en el segundo trimestre, particularmente en la zona euro. Pero aún temen que cualquier recuperación sea moderada y que podría tomar años para que la producción vuelva a la normalidad.

Prueba de ello es que el PIB alemán durante el segundo trimestre fue un 5.9% menor al del año pasado, mientras que en Gran Bretaña el dato tuvo una caída de 5.5% respecto al mismo período del 2008.

“Los mercados laborales sufrirán las consecuencias de la baja utilización de la capacidad de producción durante los próximos meses”, escribieron los líderes de los tres países europeos.

“Debemos enviar un mensaje en conjunto en Pittsburgh respecto a que estamos total y firmemente resueltos a implementar nuestros planes de estímulo”, dijeron.

Estados Unidos tiene un discurso similar. “Hemos avanzado un largo camino. Aún tenemos un largo recorrido por delante”, dijo Timothy Geithner, secretario del Tesoro, la tarde del miércoles.

Geithner viajará a Londres para participar en la reunión de ministros de Finanzas del G-20 el viernes y sábado, presidida por el ministro de Finanzas británico, Alistair Darling, que sentará las bases para la cumbre de Pittsburgh más adelante este mes.

usa: libro beige, mercados flojos

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Los mercados laborales e inmobiliarios en Estados Unidos permanecen débiles y las condiciones crediticias siguen siendo restrictivas, según un informe publicado el miércoles por la Reserva Federal.

Sin embargo, el informe también contiene una buena noticia: la mayoría de las regiones está observando señales de que la recesión económica está perdiendo fuerza.

La mayor parte de los 12 bancos regionales de la Fed "indicó que el ritmo de descenso se ha moderado desde el último informe o que la actividad ha empezado a estabilizarse, aunque a un nivel bajo", según el sondeo, conocido como el "Libro Beige".

El Libro Beige es un resumen de las condiciones económicas regionales para ser utilizado en la próxima reunión de política monetaria de la Fed, que se realizará en agosto. La información incluida en el informe del miércoles fue recopilada hasta el 20 de julio.

El informe previo, que cubrió el período entre mediados de abril y mayo, mostró un tono más pesimista que lo esperado: sólo cinco de los distritos informaron que la tendencia bajista estaba mostrando señales de una moderación.

Pese a los datos anecdóticos alentadores en el informe del miércoles, sigue siendo evidente que la economía estadounidense continúa haciendo frente a problemas severos, particularmente en los mercados inmobiliario y laboral. Por ejemplo, la mayoría de los distritos registró debilidad en los mercados de bienes raíces residenciales.

Además, los mercados de bienes raíces comerciales continuaron debilitándose en los últimos meses en dos terceras partes de los distritos.

A esto se suma el hecho de que la mayoría de los distritos informó una "actividad minorista floja". En tanto, las regiones de Cleveland, Richmond y Minneapolis anunciaron nuevas caídas en las ventas.

Por otra parte, se observó una demanda más débil para algunas categorías de préstamos en los distritos de Nueva York, Cleveland, Richmond, St. Louis, Kansas City y San Francisco.

El informe refuerza los comentarios realizados la semana pasada por el titular del banco central, Ben Bernanke, quien dijo ante el Congreso que el ritmo de descenso económico parece haberse desacelerado significativamente. Sin embargo, también destacó que el mercado laboral continúa debilitándose, los mercados financieros permanecen bajo tensión y las condiciones crediticias siguen siendo inferiores a lo normal.

USA: En torno a recuperaciones ficcionales, a.k.a Statistical Recoveries

URL: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/printarticle.asp?id=mwo072409 The Statistical Recovery July 24, 2009 By John Mauldin A lot of bullish commentators are talking about a recovery being in the works, and they may very well be right. But it is not going to look like any recovery worthy of the name. This week we look at what I will call The Statistical Recovery. But first we take a look at what China is doing, as we continue our look at the rest of the world and ponder whether it is time to brace ourselves for an extended bout with the Muddle Through Economy*. (And yes, there is an asterisk.) Quickly, and importantly, tonight we are releasing the first in a new series of quarterly Conversations entitled Geopolitical Conversations with John Mauldin and George Friedman. We believe that these new Conversations will help you better understand not only the global political landscape but also how it affects the financial umbrella that we are under. In this first Conversation, we talk about the "exogenous" risks to the markets (those from outside the markets themselves) posed by the geopolitical world. George and I are going to make it a regular quarterly gig. We will offer this service, which will be priced separately, at some point in the near future. Now, here is the important part: all current subscribers and anyone who subscribes now will receive these Geopolitical Conversations free, as a thank you. (Current members can log in now.) If you have not yet subscribed, you can do so and receive a discount, by clicking the link and typing in the code JM49 to subscribe for $149. This is a large discount from our regular price of $199; plus, we are including the bonus Geopolitical Conversations that are worth $59. Further, we will post a separate interview next week that I have obtained permission to use from my friends at Casey Research, and which I personally found very valuable. When we launched Conversations, we promised eight interviews a year. We are now at six, and next week I will record the seventh with housing experts John Burns of John Burns Real Estate Consulting and Rick Sharga of Realty Trac, the two leading experts on housing in the country. There is SO much uninformed, simplistic misinformation in the media about housing that I thought subscribers might like to know what the real situation is. When you subscribe, all of the past Conversations are there for you to review. I am going to make sure subscribers get way more than their money's worth. You don't want to wait another day to subscribe. And now, let's jump into this week's letter. Can China Lead the Global Recovery? China is growing by about 8% a year, which is amazing on the surface of it, as their exports are down about 20% (more in some sectors). How can that be? I continually read about how China is going to lead the world out of its global funk. And 8% growth in GDP does seem pretty strong. But we need to look a little deeper. If I told you that the next US stimulus package would be $4.5 trillion dollars, mostly given to banks that would be forced to loan out the money quickly, do you think that might jump spending and GDP in the short term? Would you start looking for a few bubbles to be created? What about the dollar? That is the equivalent of what China is now doing. The volume of credit that is flowing into China is equivalent to one-third of their GDP. Banks that already have large problem-loan portfolios are now lending even more, in a very short time frame. China has severe capacity-utilization problems, as trade has sharply fallen; and the US consumer is unlikely to return to anywhere near the level of consumption that was the case in 2006. The Chinese stock market is up 85% this year, and commodity and real estate prices are rising. And no wonder: the money supply shot up 28.5% in June alone. That money is looking for a home. My friend Vitaliy Katsenelson has written a very perceptive essay for Foreign Policy magazine, talking about the nature of the current growth in China. "But don't confuse fast growth with sustainable growth. Much of China's growth over the past decade has come from lending to the United States. The country suffers from real overcapacity. And now growth comes from borrowing -- and hundreds of billion-dollar decisions made on the fly don't inspire a lot of confidence. For example, a nearly completed, 13-story building in Shanghai collapsed in June due to the poor quality of its construction. "This growth will result in a huge pile of bad debt -- as forced lending is bad lending. The list of negative consequences is very long, but the bottom line is simple: There is no miracle in the Chinese miracle growth, and China will pay a price. The only question is when and how much." I am going to quote at some length from Simon Hunt's latest note. He travels very frequently to China and is one of the world's true experts on the copper market. If you want to know something about copper, ask Simon. Copper, we are told, is the metal with a PhD in economics. If copper prices are rising, then the economy is booming. And historically, that has more or less been the case. But there may be reason to believe that PhD may be no more useful this time around than a regular Ivy League degree. "The world community has come to see that China is its savior. Growth picked up sharply in the second quarter, but it is based on fixed asset investment and renewed speculative activity in the real estate sector. It is not what the actual GDP or IP [Industrial Production] numbers will show that matters, but the quality of that growth. Money is cheap with loans and credit freely available, so much so that China risks developing new bubbles in the stock and commodity markets and real estate. Speculation is based on the simple premise that prices must rise. Foreigners as well as domestic participants are feeding this frenzy, especially in metal markets. "The frenzied loan and credit growth is unlikely to be cut back until the fourth quarter at the earliest. It is not this year or next which worries us, but post 2010. What will China do when the world economy gets hit with its next big leg down? "There is no better example of this speculative activity than what is being seen in the copper market. It is easy for global merchants, hedge funds etc to ship cathode into China and warehouse it outside the reporting system, so fuelling investors' sentiments that copper demand in China is soaring and at the same time draining copper from the rest of the market. "It is not so much industry which is doing this buying in China, but individuals, financial institutions and even small companies divorced from the copper industry who are buying and holding the metal because copper is a store of value and prices will go up is the common response. We updated our numbers for the first half of this year. They are truly staggering. Over 1 million tonnes of cathode is sitting in China mostly outside the reporting system as a punt on rising prices." (Emphasis mine) If it is happening in copper it is likely to be happening in other commodity markets as well. If you are trading the metals, you should be aware that a quick drop could happen if demand falls off due to there being a glut of supply coming back onto the market. Why would China engage in what seems from our shores to be very risky behavior? Because from their point of view it makes sense. It is not a lot different in concept than what the US or England is doing to stimulate their economies. The scope and size are different, but China also has a much different problem. They are attempting to soften the transition from an economy dependent on the US consumer to one that is more balanced. Will they be successful? The answer depends on what they are actually trying to do. You could (and should) also ask whether Bernanke will be successful when he decides to remove reserves from the economy. Avoiding financial Armageddon may be the measure of success in both countries, with the reality that there will be some pain, no matter what. Who Ends Up with the Old Maid? But the important news out of China this week was the assertion that China was getting ready to use its massive $2.2 trillion reserves. From the Financial Times: "Beijing will use its foreign exchange reserves, the largest in the world, to support and accelerate overseas expansion and acquisitions by Chinese companies, Wen Jiabao, the country's premier, said in comments published on Tuesday. 'We should hasten the implementation of our "going out" strategy and combine the utilization of foreign exchange reserves with the "going out" of our enterprises,' he told Chinese diplomats late on Monday. Mr. Wen said Beijing also wanted Chinese companies to increase its share of global exports. The 'going out' strategy is a slogan for encouraging investment and acquisitions abroad, particularly by big state-owned industrial groups such as PetroChina, Chinalco, China Telecom and Bank of China." This is a very big deal, and from the Chinese point of view, quite smart. Right now they are stuck with $2 trillion in US Treasuries, agency paper, etc. They can't sell their dollars without really hurting the dollar, thereby forcing the renminbi to rise and hurting their own exports. But they, and much of the world, feel that the US is pursuing policies that are going to be harmful to the value of the dollar and therefore to China's largest reserve exposure. What to do? Take those dollars and buy physical assets. Companies, natural resources, maybe a few small countries. (To my Chinese readers: that's a joke, although some in the West worry about that.) In the card game called Old Maid we played as kids, the loser was the one who ended up with the "Old Maid" at the end of the game. For the past decade, the Chinese sent us "stuff" and we sent them dollars in the form of electrons. They in turn invested those dollars in our debt so we could buy more stuff. It was a form of vendor financing. And now the Chinese have apparently decided to pass the Old Maid of the dollar on to other parties, who will sell them their assets for dollars. Seriously, did anyone not think they would do this? Massively selling the dollar, which so many conspiracy-theory types keep saying they will, was never really a rational option. But using those dollars to acquire productive assets? Very smart, very rational. If you figure out what they want to buy and get there first, there are profits to be had. Attention should be paid. $2.2 trillion in reserves and growing can cover a lot of economic sins and bad bank loans. It can buy time for the companies with too much production capacity in China to find new customers. Will it be a smooth ride? Of course not. There will be a lot of bankrupt companies and a lot of angst among the entrepreneurial class. That is part of the process. But in five or ten years, China will be larger and stronger than it is today. Count on it. That being said, is it likely China will pull the world out of its current slump? Not for a while. China is just 7% of global GDP. Even if they grow at 8%, that only adds 0.5% to global growth, and it is likely that we will see global GDP shrink by 2.7% in 2009. Look at the chart below from my friends at Hayman Advisors. A few side observations on the above graph. China is roughly as big as the other three of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, and India) combined. Russia and Brazil are in recessions. Also, note that it will be decades before China's economy is as big as that of the US, even with growth of 5-6% a year more than that of the US. Will it eventually be as big? Of course, and it should be; tt has four times more people. Will it matter? Not a bit. Does Denmark care that the US or Germany is bigger? Not that I can tell. Does Dallas care if New York is bigger? You just deal with the reality in front of you and try and make the most of what you have. If you focus on the other person or country, you lose sight of your own goals. Further, I rather doubt that China will be growing by 8% a year in 15 or 20 years. Like all large economies, they will start to experience slower growth. And they will have their own demographic problems in a few decades as a result of the "one child" policy. Every country has to deal with its own specific issues. That being said, will there be opportunities in China and other emerging-market countries? You bet. I rather think that the developing world will be where the real opportunities will be as the world figures out what the New Normal will look like. And now, let's look at a few issues the US will have to deal with. A Statistical Recovery "I've been down so long it looks like up to me," went the song of my youth. The recessions is not quite two years old. Every day we are hit with increasing unemployment, lower incomes, rising taxes, and more - a relentless stream of bad news. We wonder whether it will ever end. And the answer is that of course it will. And it may be ending now. But this is going to feel like a very different recovery from what we normally think of as recovery. It will be more of a statistical recovery than a real one. The easiest way to explain that concept is to look at the following graph. At one point, housing construction was over 5% of GDP. Now it is around 2.5%. The graph shows how much a shrinking home-construction industry has reduced GDP each quarter for the last two years. Without going into a lot of detail, housing construction may be at a bottom, or at least there is less room to fall. Instead of housing subtracting 1% (or more) from GDP each quarter, it may become a nonfactor as a bottom is reached. Does that mean recovery? No, it just means that things aren't getting worse. We are finding that level of the New Normal. Ditto for inventories. At some point, you have to restock the shelves. Rail shipments are down by almost 20% from last year, and UPS package volume is down 4.7%. And as Dave Rosenberg pointed out this morning, that is from last year's already depressed levels. As Alan Blinder noted today in the Wall Street Journal, at some point you finally get to bottom. Housing, inventories and business investment stop subtracting from GDP, and the GDP stops shrinking. And as I pointed out a few weeks ago, the fact that we are buying less from outside of the US (imports) may show economic weakness, but from a statistical point of view that is positive for GDP. All of this means that we could see -- actually, we will see -- a positive GDP number at some point. Those of bullish persuasion will talk of recovery. But for the 10%-plus people who will not have a job next year, it is not going to seem like a recovery. Nor for the additional 7% (at least) part-time employees looking for full-time work. Go back to 2001. We had "the end of the recession." Bulls were out in force, trying to talk up the market. But unemployment still rose for almost a year. And the stock market noticed. The market did not really take off for well over a year, and actually continued to slide into 2002. The Last Bear Standing Notice in the chart below that unemployment continued to rise until the first quarter of 2003. And that is also when the stock market took off. Those who see green shoots need to think about that. Meanwhile, the market is clearly telling us that it sees nothing but blue skies in the future. I truly marvel at this rally, but I continue to think it is a bear-market rally. The weakest, high-beta names are rallying the most. This rally does not seem to be the basis for a sustained bull market. That being said, Richard Russell has removed the bear from his letter and put in a bull. I may be the last bear standing. The media tells us earnings are coming in above expectations. But expectations have been lowered so much that the target is much easier to hit. Even then, the "upside profit surprises" are coming from cost cutting, which is not sustainable as a profit center, at least not if you are trying to grow the business. And laying off employees, while perhaps good for the profits of one company, is not good for the overall economic business environment. The Muddle Through Economy* This is going to be a long, jobless recovery. Hours worked per week are at an all-time low. As noted above, part-time work is very high. Employers, when things actually start to turn around, and they will, will first give current employees more hours and then expand the hours of part-time workers. There will be few new jobs for a long time. Because our population is growing, between 130-150,000 new jobs are required each month to keep unemployment from rising. Initial and continuing claims suggest we are currently losing at least 300,000 a month. (As an aside, the media talks about initial unemployment claims falling. That is actually not true. Unemployment claims are in fact quite high and rising, but the seasonal adjustments make them look smaller. Normally, this would not be a big deal. But the summer seasonal adjustment assumes a normal automobile manufacturing market, with layoffs in July. The layoffs came much earlier this year, distorting seasonal adjustments.) Higher and persistent unemployment, lower incomes and wages, higher savings rates, capacity utilization at 50-year lows and still falling, rising home foreclosures, a deleveraging financial system, etc. are not the stuff of "V-shaped" recoveries. Throw in that Moody's estimates that US banks will have to write off $400 billion in 2010, and it's a very weak recovery indeed that shapes up for next year. It's the return of The Muddle Through Economy*, which is better than what we have had, to be sure. But that asterisk is there for a reason. Congress and the Obama administration are seemingly hell bent on a massive tax increase. If that happens, it will push a fragile recovery back into recession. It will look like the twin recessions of 1980-82. It will be a difficult investing environment, to say the least. If buy-and-hold is not your favorite style, there are alternatives. Quick commercial: my friends at CMG have a platform of alternative managers that can be tailored to your specific needs. These are traders who have weathered the storms of this last decade. These are individually managed accounts, with daily liquidity. You really owe it to yourself to see the managers on their platform. The link to their form is http://www.cmgfunds.net/public/mauldin_questionnaire.asp. I am encouraged by the fact that the radical health reforms look like they might not pass. The health-care system clearly needs a major overhaul. Let's hope that we get it right. In a future letter, I am going to talk about taxes. I am concerned that we are going to raise taxes now to very high levels, and not leave any room for the tax increases we are going to desperately need in the middle of the next decade to pay for entitlement programs. That will mean a VAT tax and tax increases on the middle class. Again, not good for the economy. But enough for today. Time to hit the send button. New York, Maine, and Tulsa Next week I am going to take a few days off and head for a beach somewhere, along with my summer reading list. I will get back for one day, and then with my 15-year-old son head for New York for an evening dinner with Art Cashin, Ron Insana, and George and Meredith Friedman. That should make for interesting conversation. Then off the next morning to Maine, after shooting a few spots with Aaron Task and Henry Blodgett at Yahoo! Tech Ticker. CNBC and Steve Liesman will be at the Shadow Fed fishing event, and it looks like I will do a few minutes with him, as they plan to do an hour-long special with many of the investment writers, economists, and analysts who will be there. I am really looking forward to that trip. And then back home for a few weeks before going to Tulsa for Amanda's wedding on the 22nd. Amanda was a competitive cheerleader for a long time, and she is bringing that drive to the wedding. If there is deflation in this country, it is not in wedding costs. Two weddings in two years has me breathing hard. And two more to go, although right now it looks like that might not be soon. And if the job market will help out, Amanda and Allen (her fiancee) and her twin sister Abbi intend to move back to the Dallas area after the first of the year, which will mean I'll have all seven kids close to me again. I really look forward to that. We tend to get together as a family for brunch at least every other Sunday, and it's a fun day for me. Lots of love and laughing -- and now babies. And more on the way! There is a bull market in my joy in my kids, that's for sure. And now it really is time to hit the send button, as I am off to the local pub to have a drink with #2 daughter Melissa. She is going to have to have her gall bladder removed, and Dad likes to check in now and then. Have a great week, and enjoy your summer before it goes away, Your doing better than Muddle Through analyst, John Mauldin John@frontlinethoughts.com Copyright 2009 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved If you would like to reproduce any of John Mauldin's E-Letters you must include the source of your quote and an email address (John@frontlinethoughts.com) Please write to Wave@frontlinethoughts.com and inform us of any reproductions. Please include where and when the copy will be reproduced. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) an NASD registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions. Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC may or may not have investments in any funds cited above.

_

__,_._,___

--

Y qué pasaría si de pronto ganaran menos dinero?

EEUU: sube el salario mínimo; temen por empleos

49 minutos

ATLANTA (AP) - Un aumento del salario mínimo a nivel federal entró el viernes en vigencia, y algunos economistas temen que ayude a prolongar la recesión, al obligar a pequeños empresarios a echar a los mismos trabajadores que el aumento debía ayudar.

El salario mínimo es ahora de 7,25 dólares, 70 centavos por hora más para los empleados que ganan sueldos inferiores en los 30 estados donde los salarios mínimos son más bajos, o donde directamente no existe el salario mínimo. También significa costos más altos para empresarios de bajos recursos.

"¿Cómo van a absorber el aumento"? preguntó Rajeev Dhawan, director del Centro de Pronósticos Económicos de la universidad de Georgia. "O contratan menos personal", dijo Dhawan, "o ganarán menos dinero".

Es la primera vez desde la Gran Depresión de la década del treinta que las empresas están despidiendo tantos trabajadores y reduciendo las horas de trabajo en tal medida. Y eso está agravando la recesión económica en estados donde ya el desempleo es de doble dígito, señalaron economistas.

Los partidarios de un aumento del salario mínimo señalan por su parte que el alza de sueldos ayudará a mantener a flote a más pobres. También dicen que se requieren más aumentos para estimular los gastos del consumidor y apuntalar las empresas en el largo plazo.

Es un añejo debate que ha resurgido cuando el Congreso aprobó el aumento hace dos años, y ha tomado un cierto sentido de urgencia ahora que se ha profundizado el déficit fiscal.

En conclusión, son los trabajadores y sus empleadores quienes se encuentran atrapados en medio del debate.

Aquellos que respaldan el aumento dicen que debería haberse concretado mucho antes.

El representante George Miller, demócrata por California, fue en el 2007 el autor del proyecto de ley de salario mínimo, que aumentó los sueldos por primera vez en una década.

__._,_.

.

__,_._,___

PRODUCTIVIDAD : CAIDA CAUSA CRISIS?

excelente
Did a productivity slowdown cause the financial crisis?
by nhunt

Discussions about the current crisis often present events in a sequence, such as that the US sub-prime crisis in August 2007 triggered a major inter-bank credit crisis, which transformed itself into a general credit crisis, the latter having an impact on the real economy and overall business and consumer confidence.

Click here to read more on our site

PERU: Sunat: Los ingresos tributarios - 21.3% junio 09

Sunat: Los ingresos tributarios cayeron un 21.3% en junio

17:26El resultado refleja los efectos de la desfavorable coyuntura internacional en la actividad económica interna, según la Superintendencia Nacional de Administración Tributaria.

Los ingresos tributarios del Gobierno central ascendieron a 3,876 millones de soles en junio, un 21.3% menos, en términos reales, respecto a similar mes del 2008, reportó la Superintendencia Nacional de Administración Tributaria (Sunat).

En términos acumulados, la recaudación del primer semestre del año ascendió a 25,969 millones de soles, cifra que representa una disminución real de 16.4% en referencia al mismo período del año anterior.

La Sunat explicó que estos resultados reflejan aún la desfavorable coyuntura internacional y sus efectos sobre la actividad económica interna, manifestándose principalmente sobre el comercio exterior, con efectos negativos tanto sobre el Impuesto a la Renta como sobre los impuestos que tienen como base a las importaciones.

Según informa la agencia Andina, la entidad destacó el comportamiento del Impuesto General a las Ventas (IGV) interno cuya recaudación se mantiene positiva con un crecimiento acumulado de 6.2%, en términos reales, al primer semestre.

Los menores resultados de junio se sustentan tanto en la recaudación de tributos internos (excluye las contribuciones sociales) que ascendió a 3,438 millones de soles, con una caída real de 12%; como en la recaudación de los tributos aduaneros que alcanzó los 1,165 millones con una caída de 28.4%.

En términos acumulados, la recaudación de tributos internos sumó 23,172 millones de soles en el primer semestre (-9.7%), mientras que la recaudación de tributos aduaneros sumó 7,068 millones (-20.2%).

En junio las devoluciones de impuestos totalizaron 727 millones de soles, cifra que representó un crecimiento en términos reales de 19.4% respecto a similar mes del año anterior.

De acuerdo a estos resultados, las devoluciones acumuladas al primer semestre totalizaron 4,271 millones de soles, un 23.4% más que similar período del 2008.

En el período enero – junio destacaron los importantes montos de devolución por saldo a favor del contribuyente del ejercicio 2008 informado en la Regularización Anual del Impuesto a la Renta por parte de un grupo de empresas.

Asimismo, recordó la vigencia, durante todo el año, del incremento de cinco a ocho por ciento en la tasa del Régimen de Restitución de Derechos Arancelarios (drawback), decretada mediante Decreto Supremo N° 018-2009-EF, factor que explica en parte los mayores montos acumulados de devoluciones.

USA : desempleo al 9,5% en junio

El Gobierno de EE.UU. informó que en junio se volvió a acelerar el ritmo de la pérdida de puestos de trabajo

02/07/2009 | Actualizada a las 16:57h | Economía

Washington (EFE).- El índice de desempleo en Estados Unidos subió una décima y se ubicó en el 9,5 por ciento en junio, un mes durante el cual se aceleró el ritmo de pérdida de puestos de trabajo, informó hoy el gobierno.

El Departamento de Trabajo indicó que el mes pasado la economía tuvo una pérdida neta de 467.000 puestos de trabajo, comparado con la desaparición de 322.000 empleos en mayo.

La mayoría de los analistas esperaba que el índice de desempleo subiera al 9,6 por ciento, y la pérdida de empleos estuviese alrededor de 350.000. El informe muestra asimismo que el mes pasado se mantuvieron sin cambio las remuneraciones horarias en 18,53 dólares. Los analistas esperaban un aumento del 0,2 por ciento. Las remuneraciones han subido un 2,7 por ciento en un año.

FRANCE: IMPOTS SUR LES SALAIRES

VOIRE
http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/2009/05/13/04001-20090513ARTFIG00350-la-france-au-4e-rang-mondial-pour-les-impots-sur-les-salaires-.php

FRANCE: IMPOTS SUR LES SALAIRES

VOIRE
http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/2009/05/13/04001-20090513ARTFIG00350-la-france-au-4e-rang-mondial-pour-les-impots-sur-les-salaires-.php

CHOMAGE

http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/2009/04/28/04001-20090428ARTFIG00515-24-millions-de-demandeurs-d-emplois-en-france-.php

AFP: SOBRE EL ALZA DE COMISIONES, KBURNEO

Cómo Ganar Mas de 3 Millones de Soles

Kurt Burneo

No, no necesita ganar la lotería sino solamente ser accionista de una AFP. El caso es que una de las cuatro AFP´s anunció para alegría de sus accionistas y mala suerte de sus afiliados que elevaría su comisión por administrar el fondo de sus afiliados de 1.98% a 2.3%: Entonces si tal como la propia AFP lo reconoce hasta el momento cuenta con 996,000 afiliados con un salario promedio de 1,000 nuevos soles, su decisión unilateral de aumento en la comisión, le reporta mayores ingresos por S/. 3´187,000 nuevos soles mensuales, curiosamente y por pura casualidad esta decisión de esta AFP surge a continuación de la ley recientemente promulgada que establece la no afectación de las gratificaciones para efectos de aportes al sistema pensionario.

Muy al margen que la decisión de esta AFP implica directamente la reducción del salario real de sus afiliados, el caso es que no hay mucho margen de reacción para estos últimos, dado que la posibilidad de traslado a otra AFP no se efectiviza en lo inmediato; es así que si un trabajador afiliado a esta AFP no quisiera seguir recibiendo estas atípicas expresiones de afecto y presentase sus solicitud de traslado hoy a otra AFP (dado que todas las otras cobran comisiones mas bajas) la generación de aportes y comisiones en la nueva administradora recién se efectivizaría en el mes de julio tal como la aplicación de nuestra normatividad vigente lo establece.

Téngase en cuenta que el gerente de esta administradora, para justificar la decisión señalaba que: “Los afiliados están alcanzando una rentabilidad de 13% de su inversión, entonces no hay un equilibrio” …(el rendimiento para los accionistas de esta AFP es de “sólo US$ 33 millones”), ¿Usted cree amigo lector que si realmente hubiera competencia en el mercado de administración de fondos previsionales sería posible sin mayor problema como ocurre hoy, el que una AFP incremente el precio del servicio para aumentar el rendimiento de la inversión de los dueños? Claro cuando en lo inmediato la demanda por servicios de administración de fondos de pensiones es (por arreglo institucional) perfectamente inelástica, ello sí es factible.

Otro interesante argumento de esta AFP engreidora de sus afiliados, para justificar el alza en la comisión, según su gerente general es porque:….”lo mas importante es mantener el servicio que venimos dando a nuestros afiliados” Veamos, si le tomamos la palabra a este funcionario el mejor servicio que espera el afiliado de su AFP o de cualquiera, está asociado con el rendimiento neto que logre. El caso es que dado que la rentabilidad se calcula sobre el monto de la cuenta individual de capitalización (el ahorro del afiliado) y las comisiones sobre las remuneraciones; se necesita calcular una comisión que convierte lo que un afiliado desembolsa actualmente durante todo su periodo de ahorro (tiempo de vida laboral útil alrededor de 30 años) en una comisión que se estime sobre su cuenta individual de capitalización, a esto se denomina Comisión Equivalente. Entonces si descontamos a la rentabilidad del fondo pensionario de un afiliado la comisión equivalente, se tiene una versión ajustada de la rentabilidad neta y según cálculos de la propia SBS, paradójicamente, la AFP que subió su comisión para mantener “el servicio a sus afiliados” en los últimos 10 años (dado que el análisis debe hacerse con una perspectiva de largo plazo) presenta una rentabilidad neta de 7.12%, la mas baja respecto a las otras. ¿Mejor servicio?

Adicionalmente, este tipo de decisiones unilaterales van a contrasentido del objetivo macroeconómico de las recientes medidas dictadas, para exonerar las gratificaciones al pago de aportes previsionales y liberalización de las CTS, las cuales buscan propulsar el ingreso disponible, el consumo y la demanda…... Excepto que se suponga que los accionistas de esta AFP tienen tantas necesidades insatisfechas que su propensión a consumir (y por tanto el efecto sobre el consumo y demanda en la economía) es mucho mayor que la que tienen sus afiliados. Al final 3 millones de soles adicionales al mes para los accionistas de esta AFP, los obtienen no por jugar a la loteria, ni por racionalizar sus costos como cualquier otra empresa, sino gracias a una privilegiada posición en un mercado cautivo.