* Blog


* Últimos mensajes


* Temas mas recientes

PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Primavera 2024 por Cadavre Exquis
[Hoy a las 14:23:20]


AGI por Cadavre Exquis
[Ayer a las 21:03:39]


XTE-Central 2024 : El opio del pueblo por saturno
[Ayer a las 00:58:14]


Coches electricos por puede ser
[Mayo 14, 2024, 18:53:46 pm]


Thank You Posts

Show post that are related to the Thank-O-Matic. It will show the topcis where you become a Thank You from an other users. (Related to the first post.)


Temas - muyuu

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11482696/Renting-your-way-to-poverty-welcome-to-the-future-of-housing.html

Renting your way to poverty: welcome to the future of housing
The housing crisis is already out of control, and no one in politics wants to help

George Osborne’s latest budget continued the trend of all his other budgets: introduce new measures that will further inflate house prices. This time it was "help to buy" ISA’s.
George is on a roll, and it's not clear whether he realises where this price-hiking frenzy might end.

During 2013 housing prices in London rose by around £40,000 for an average flat or house that was sold compared to the previous year. This brought the cost of a typical London home sold on the market up to just above £475,000. This rate of increase continued through 2014.

By 2015 average London prices were over £500,000.

[mapa y gráficas en el enlace]

Fewer and fewer people are able to get a mortgage. In the UK stricter tests have been introduced to try to prevent banks and building societies lending as recklessly as they did before. There have been repeated warnings to borrowers that at some point interest rates will have to rise. Up is the only direction in which they can go. The US Federal Reserve is now hinting that they will raise interest rates soon.

At least a third of mortgagees would struggle if interest rates were to rise by just a couple of percentage points. The further house prices in the South of England climb, the greater that proportion will grow as new entrants become more stretched. People who are a safe bet at one point in time can easily lose their jobs, split up or become ill. Add a slight rise in mortgage interest rates and anyone already struggling to pay the bills quickly gets into arrears.

Prices have risen because the government has been trying to get them to rise. At the end of 2014 the campaigning organisation Priced Out calculated that the government-sponsored Help to Buy programme had helped raise average prices by £46,000 in 18 months – or 27 per cent – resulting in an additional 258,000 renters being priced-out of buying a home as compared to the 31,000 buyers helped by the scheme. Some 3.5 million people who would have normally been able to buy a home are now trapped in private renting.


In the autumn of 2014 there was little sign of a slowdown in the UK housing market. There were plenty of warnings of a slowdown, but very little evidence of prices falling. By September prices fell slightly in most regions, but they usually do in that month. In London prices had risen by a remarkable 18.4 per cent in just one year. That annual percentage increase had itself been rising all year; but no one can tell you what it will be in a few months from now. It could crash; it could grow even higher; it is unlikely to remain the same. As prices began to fall in central London in February and March of 2015 the latest budget is designed to try to hold them up through to May 7.

On 23 October 2014, shares in the London-based estate agents, Foxtons, fell by 20 per cent in just a matter of hours. They fell because Foxtons said that they did not expect to make as much money next year as they had in 2014. Many investors wondered whether this might be signalling the start of a wider property crash. Foxton’s fortunes have suffered again very recently and again there is chattering among the informed. Annual price rises of 21 per cent were reported in London last year. Four years of such housing inflation and prices would more than double. Everyone in the business knows it has to come to an end, they just don’t know when.


So what happens when the bubble bursts? Over-stretched landlords with too many new mortgages will go to the wall, many investors will be burnt, but new private landlords entering the market may simply buy up more property cheaply, outbidding potential first-time buyers, since landlords are offered better mortgage terms.

The estate agent Savills predicts that between 2014 and 2019 across England and Wales the number of households privately renting will increase by 1.2 million, owner-occupiers will fall by 200,000 and social renters will fall by 50,000. Half the fall in owner-occupiers is predicted to take place in London. Private landlords are predicted to buy the equivalent of all the new build flats and homes in London, and a further 100,000 currently mortgaged or owned homes, and some 10,000 currently social rented properties.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation extrapolates and suggests that by 2040 private rents will rise by more than twice as much as incomes, resulting in a majority of future private renters in England living in poverty. Social renting, currently the tenure of one in seven people, will house only 10 per cent of the population by 2040.

It will be even worse if 220,000 homes a year are not built by the 2030s and if another £20 billion a year is not spent on housing benefits as more poorly paid families come to rely on the state. All of this is just if current trends continue, not following a further downturn. In the last six years, two thirds of all new housing benefit claimants have been middle-income-earners.


How do politicians react?

The Conservatives keep inflating the bubble, most recently by announcing that upon reaching retirement age pensioners can purchase property with their pension pots rather than take an annuity. Only the most affluent pensioners will be able to do this but the policy was presented as if it would apply to all.

The Tories need house prices to rise until at least the day before the general election of May 2015. If they win an outright majority, the Tories propose to end the building of what little social housing is now constructed by abolishing the 20 per cent levies that local councils are allowed to charge on new developments for new roads, schools and affordable housing provision.

Nick Clegg did not mention housing in his speech at the 2014 Lib Dem party conference, although he did claim that his party would build ten garden cities by incentivising local communities to ask for building around their homes by offering them an express train service.

Labour published the Lyons review, which suggested changing the law so that local councils should have real powers to ensure that if land has been allocated for development in a plan, it is actually delivered, including the ability to levy a charge where delivery has not occurred (and there is no good reason for the failure).

Building 200,000 new homes a year will not lead to Utopia, unless they are in the right places, owned and rented out the right way.


Outside London there are still a few areas where house prices are lower than in 2008, where private rents have collapsed and homes may have to be demolished, and where living conditions are rapidly declining not due to overcrowding but underuse. By October 2014 it took 3.5 average homes in the North East of England to buy one modest home in London, four years earlier that divide had been 2.5 times. By late 2014 the estate agent Knight Frank was predicting that the gap would only grow wider.


In his December 2014 autumn statement Mr Osborne announced an £800 million cut to stamp duty on the purchase of properties. All his previous budgets had concentrated on measures designed to raise housing prices and the cost of housing, committing more spending or guarantees in that area than any other. Mr Osborne was determined that prices should increase, at least up until election day 2015, and for far longer than that if more and more people are forced to rent. His 2015 budget was simply more of the same. And the reaction to it by many voters showed how many young people living outside of London do not realise that they too will soon be priced of buying a home as the price rise wave ripples out of the capital cities. It is currently moving through the Home Counties.
Only the extremely well off will be able to buy a home in future in South East England. Most people will have to rent and enrich a landlord. Just under 80 per cent of people think it is harder to buy a home now than it was a generation ago, even in the hardest times of the recent past. Over 80 per cent of people think the main political parties won’t deal with the problem effectively. This is what chaos and instability looks like. This is precarity in housing. For a majority of young adults they face the equivalent of zero hours contract at work – the 2 months notice to leave a property should you landlord wish you out. Just eight weeks to find a new home. Welcome to the future.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/03/germany-minimumwage-approval-idUSL6N0PE2ZM20140703?irpc=932

8,5 euros por hora. Entrará en efecto en el período 2015-2017.

Citar
German parliament approves 8.50 euro national minimum wage


(Reuters) - Germany's lower house of parliament approved on Thursday the introduction of a nationwide minimum wage of 8.50 euros per hour, one of the flagship reforms of Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition partner, the centre-left Social Democrats.

Of the 601 votes cast, 535 voted in favour of the law, 5 lawmakers voted against it and 61 abstained, according to a deputy leader of the Bundestag. The reform still needs to get approval from the Bundesrat upper house to become law. (Reporting by Annika Breidthardt; Editing by Noah Barkin)


Salvedades introducidas para que sigan habiendo salarios más bajos:

Menores de 18 o parados de larga duración.

Para los parados de larga duración, a los 6 meses de contrato expira la salvedad (o sea, a la calle si no te suben el salario al mínimo).


Curioso movimiento, aunque me pregunto si es más electoralista que real.

en: Septiembre 15, 2013, 21:27:50 pm 3 General / Transición Estructural / cómo cuadrar las cuentas del Estado

A partir de esta gráfica actualizada http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/graficos/mar/s5/presupuestos.html

...y con las distintas previsiones de déficit, he estado haciendo cuentas de servilleta esta tarde. La verdad es que la servilleta queda entre azabache y color hormiga.

Necesitamos cuadrar alrededor de 60 millardos simplemente para no seguir hundiéndonos en más deuda.

Pongamos que queremos cuadrarlo mitad y mitad, 30 millardos netos menos de gasto y 30 millardos netos más de recaudación. ¿Cómo te lo montas?

Todo lo que veo en los foros es bastante mezquino, en el sentido de que cualquier cosa se va a criticar. Cualquier cosa que no sea empeorar el déficit aún más, y luego por supuesto esto también se critica.

Supongamos que estás en el papelón de tener que cuadrar esto. ¿Cómo lo haces?

A partir de la línea mi opinión personal (abro paraguas):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- El IVA no lo toco. Está a niveles de extorsión, y se va a ir toda la diferencia al mercado "informal" (dinero negro).

- Hidrocarburos sí lo toco. Subida de unos 40 céntimos por litro de media. Recaudación extra estimada: 8 millardos. (Esto descuenta una importante caída del consumo).

- Transferencias: recorte de 11 millardos, volviendo a niveles del 2011. Esto supondría el cierre de varias cadenas autonómicas y empresas afines a las administraciones regionales. También la quiebra de los bonos patrióticos de todas las CCAA que los han emitido, que no hay forma de que los mantengan en ningún caso. Recortes de sueldos en empleados públicos de las CCAA. Doloroso sin duda, pero qué se le va a hacer.

- Desempleo: no lo tocaría en estos momentos. Es esperable una caída de las prestaciones de 2 millardos aprox. por efecto de la emigración, y porque se van agotando... En realidad sí lo tocaría en lo administrativo, tema para otro hilo, pero no con efecto retroactivo por lo que no influiría en los presupuestos de este año.

- Pensiones: están congeladas. Hacer más que eso parece un poco radical pero creo que no queda más remedio. Habría que compensar el aumento, o sea reducirlas alrededor del 5% que es lo que van a aumentar en cuantía este año, por el aumento del número de jubilados. Sin esto, engordamos el déficit unos 6 millardos. Con esto, 0.

Y con todo esto, siendo optimistas ajustaríamos 20-21 millardos, faltan unos 40. Que es más que todos los intereses de la deuda. Es decir, que con una quita del 100% todavía no la cuadraríamos  :roto2:

Hay que rascar más por otros lados. Quizás un poco más de transferencias. A ver qué se os ocurre.

Menudo papelón, compañeros.

PS: se apreciarán las alternativas completas realistas mejor que el "no a todo, ¡¡hdp!!" pero... atpc nos vamos a la quiebra sin remisión.

PS2: sobre impuestos e hidrocarburos:
(DOCX) http://www.agenciatributaria.es/static_files/AEAT/Aduanas/Contenidos_Privados/Impuestos_especiales/Estudio_relativo_2011/4HIDROCARBUROS.docx


http://www.elblogsalmon.com/indicadores-y-estadisticas/el-reparto-de-impuestos-en-el-coste-de-la-gasolina

en: Julio 20, 2013, 21:06:33 pm 4 General / The Big Picture / The End of Growth (en inglés)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/19/economy-end-growth-resource-scarcity-costs

Citar
Economists forecast the end of growth
Unlimited GDP growth is over as we enter a new age of resource scarcity - we must transition to a new economy


Citar
The last few weeks has seen bad news for the global economy, with the US and Europe facing growth slowdowns, and even much vaunted economic powerhouses Brazil, Russia, India and China faltering unexpectedly. While mainstream economists continue to predict an ongoing 'recovery', other leading experts point to the end of growth as we know it for the foreseeable future.

Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) slashed its quarterly forecasts for global GDP growth from 3.3% to 3.1%, and revised down growth estimates for other major powers. The US forecast was downgraded from 1.9% to 1.7%, and Europe is expected to contract 0.6% rather than the originally estimated 0.3%. The IMF also downgraded growth forecasts for 2014.

Against this background, evidence has emerged that the era of booming economic growth is over, and that we are entering an age of permanently slow growth - at best.

A new paper in the journal International Productivity Monitor finds that underlying the US recession is a long-term decline in productivity growth, interrupted briefly by the "dot.com revolution" for eight years, followed by a slump "to 1.47 in the past eight years."

Study author US economist Prof Robert J Gordon of Northeastern University concludes:

"... we face a significant possibility that the disposable income growth for the bottom 99% of the income distribution could be as low as 0.5% per year, or perhaps even 0.2%."

This conclusion complements Gordon's previous prediction last year that by 2100, the US economy would return to an annual growth rate of 0.2%. He describes the second industrial revolution as the core driver behind rocketing growth experienced over the last 250 years, noting that the main factor behind the continuing slump since 1970 - escalating over "the last eight years", was a lack of sufficient industrial innovation capable of fundamentally "changing labour productivity or the standard of living."

He argued:

"Future growth in real GDP per capita will be slower than in any extended period since the late 19th century."

The "headwinds" holding growth back include key economic issues such as "rising inequality", the "end of the 'demographic dividend'", the "overhang of consumer and government debt", as well as "the consequences of environmental regulations and taxes that will make growth harder to achieve than a century ago."

While Prof Gordon has his naysayers, his outlook is surprisingly corroborated by other experts. HSBC Group chief economist Stephen D. King's new book, When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence, portends how the age of high economic growth will never return, largely due to the "exhaustion of various one-off productivity gains that boosted growth after World War II" and "a tripling in rates of consumer credit founded on an unsustainable increase in housing prices", among other factors. King disagrees with Gordon's worst-case scenarios, but agrees that the dividends that made high growth possible in the past appear largely "unrepeatable."

Last month, King and HSBC also slashed their global growth forecasts for 2013 from 2.2% to 2.0%, which they explained was due to unexpected slowdowns in emerging markets.

These downgrades are yet another example of the failure of mainstream economic models to keep up with the real nature and pace of global economic deterioration. Indeed, missing from the above analyses is recognition of a central factor: that the productivity gains driving industrial growth were enabled by the abundance of cheap fossil fuels and other resources.

In his latest newsletter, legendary fund manager Jeremy Grantham - who made billions predicting every major stock market bubble of recent decades - warns that cheap resources are history:

"Our global economy, reckless in its use of all resources and natural systems, shows many of the indicators of potential failure that brought down so many civilisations before ours."

Industrial civilisation is currently "completely dependent on the availability of cheap energy." Therefore, resource depletion combined with "the wild cards of rising temperatures, slowly rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and, above all, destabilised weather for farming" could lead to "a rolling collapse of much of civilisation" - unless the world embarks on a "Manhattan project level of commitment" to transition to an alternative energy and agricultural system.

Last year Grantham issued his stunning but little-known verdict that previous US GDP growth rates of 3% a year are now "gone forever." Future US growth will eventually approximate:

"1.4% a year, and adjusted growth about 0.9%... The bottom line for US real growth, according to our forecast, is 0.9% a year through 2030, decreasing to 0.4% from 2030 to 2050."

He adds that Prof Gordon and others have failed to account for the role of "tightening resource constraints" and "environmental costs that increase at an accelerating rate":

"Resource costs have been rising, conservatively, at 7% a year since 2000. If this is maintained in a world growing at under 4% and a developed world at under 1.5% it is easy to see how the squeeze will intensify."

Resources might eventually increase their costs at 9% a year, in which case "the US will reach a point where all of the growth generated by the economy is used up in simply obtaining enough resources to run the system." Within 11 years, under this scenario, "the economic system would be in reverse."

However, Grantham now highlights two trends that could facilitate the transition to a more stable economy - declining fertility rates and the rise of renewable energy. Garnering data over the last 40 years, he demonstrates a "remarkable drop in fertility" in the US, Europe, the richer East Asian countries including China, and even South Asia and Africa. According to the more optimistic end of UN projections, if such trends continue global population would peak at 8 million by 2050 before declining to near 6 billion by 2100 - a process which could be sped up with appropriate policy measures.

Simultaneously, Grantham argues we may be on the cusp of "a great technological leap that for the first time is accompanied by less energy use – the technologies of solar, wind power, and other alternatives as well as electric grid efficiencies and improved energy storage." By 2025 to 2030, he observes:

"Both solar and wind power are likely to be cheaper than coal... once the capital is found and the project is built, a wind or solar farm delivers far cheaper energy than a coal-fired utility plant, at around one-third of the marginal cost of coal."

He estimates that "nonrenewable energy" could be completely replaced by renewables "in 30 to 50 years", during which the new technologies will become increasingly cheap and efficient.

But Grantham still concurs that these developments cannot herald a return to the era of high growth, although they might smooth the way toward a new economy that is "less overreaching, less hubristic, a lot humbler about growth and our use of resources, and more determined to live in balance with the natural energy we receive from the sun and the heat, food, and water with which we can sustainably be provided."

en: Agosto 13, 2012, 11:23:15 am 5 General / Transición Estructural / idea para un sistema de voto

Seré breve. Puse esto en algún post en foroburbu y no me hicieron mucho caso.

A ver si por aquí surgen ideas/sugerencias/discusión.


Sistema de voto. (Consideraciones y justificación en negrita).


Básicamente en cada voto se debería poder poner +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 a cada partido de los que se presenten (teniendo todos 0 por defecto). Se evitaría así el "voto útil puro", se podrían expresar preferencias y no ganaría un partido por conseguir dividir su oposición.

Esto sería una simplificación del método Schulze ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method ) y del método Tideman ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_Pairs ).

¿Por qué no Schulze o algún método de tipo "condorcet" (conteo de victorias por pares uno a uno)?

Pues porque esos métodos son para expertos principalmente, que conocen todas las opciones bien. Son demasiado complicados y asumen conocimiento de cada opción o degeneran en su rendimiento. Además, se complica mucho su contabilidad (tendría que ser totalmente informatizada).

Con el sistema que propongo, uno podría poner su o sus favoritos (+2), podría poner aquellos que considera un mal menor (+1 , quedando además constancia estadística), luego aquellos que le dejan indiferente o no conoce serían 0 (el voto informado valdría más que el voto no informado), y luego se podría votar en contra de un partido, pero de verdad, en lugar de estar haciendo cálculos votando a otro. En realidad el -1 no sería muy necesario pero lo he puesto por simetría. Con una sola opción (-1 ó -2) debería bastar.



Salu2
Páginas: [1]

SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal