La unificación de Europa (Y que va a pasar con España)

[Currobena]

Un artículo de un analista financiero relacionado con el Banco Central Suizo, sobre la crisis en Europa y los Estados Unidos.

If fiscal or monetary is applied, depends on the mentality. You cannot force a Japanese or a German to spend. They are rather risk-averse, they lived the war and hyper-inflation (see e.g. the composition of their portfolios). In the U.S. monetary policy is more successful.

Fiscal spending in countries like Italy, Spain or France is less efficient than fiscal spending in countries like Japan or Germany. The success of countries like Brazil, Mexico or Chile that have all low taxes shows that fiscal spending must be limited in these Romanic countries. Germans should do some moderate fiscal spending, e.g. infrastructure. Italian, Spanish or French firms might get the deal to do the work.

On the United States

The U.S. holds the world reserve currency. Therefore it can never have a balance of payments crisis. It is the only country in the world that can solve its competitiveness issues with spending.

The financial crisis of 2008 was essentially a balance The U.S. has a growth problem. A growth problem can be solved either by monetary policy or by fiscal policy. But fiscal policy is currently not accepted by politicians. Monetary policy is quicker and more risky, because it artificially supports U.S. house prices. House price will most naturally fall again, once inflation restarts (Steve Keen).

The Fed repeats always the same mistakes and is not patient enough (M. Friedman). QE1 was good, QE2 combined with Chinese fiscal and monetary expansion was overdone and extremely risky.

If Italy, Spain and France do not solve their competitiveness problem, the euro crisis will go into another episode when inflation restarts. They will not solve it. This does not imply that the next euro crisis will be as strong as the one 2011. Time heals all wounds, even risk-averseness.

Read more at: http://snbchf.com/2013/05/key-theses-for-the-global-fiscal-monetary-mix/ | SNB & CHF

[Lili Marleen]

ya se apuntó en el hilo por Starkiller entre otros partiendo del artículo de R.koo
: manguerazo si, pero menos y controlado

El BCE frente a la Fed, de José García Montalvo en La Vanguardia


http://www.caffereggio.es/2013/05/20/el-bce-frente-a-la-fed-de-jose-garcia-montalvo-en-la-vanguardia/
La comunicación humana tiende a alumbrar leyendas que perduran por contagio a través de conversaciones y relatos. La chica de la curva, los cocodrilos de las cloacas de Nueva York, las apariciones de Elvis Presley… y la terquedad del Banco Central Europeo (BCE) frente a la expansión del balance de la Reserva Federal (Fed). Algunos nos intentan convencer de que mientras la Fed ha hecho enormes inyecciones de liquidez, el BCE se sigue resistiendo a emprender su expansión cuantitativa. “Ojalá el BCE hiciera como hacen en Estados Unidos y ahora en Japón”. Pero en este caso, a diferencia de la chica de la curva, es bastante fácil comprobar el volumen de activos de cada banco central frente a la indefinición de la curva donde está la chica. Un simple vistazo al balance del BCE muestra que su activo se ha multiplicado desde el 2008 por un número similar al observado en el balance de la Reserva Federal y por mucho más que el del Banco de Japón.

Por motivos lógicos, la forma en la que se ha producido dicho incremento del balance ha sido diferente. En una economía muy dependiente de los mercados de capitales, como la de Estados Unidos o el Reino Unido, es razonable que dicha expansión se produzca por la compra de activos financieros y bonos. Por el contrario, en áreas muy bancarizadas, como la zona euro o Japón, lo lógico es que la expansión se transmita a la economía a través de los bancos. Ciertamente la expansión del dinero en circulación, o la traslación a la economía de ese incremento de activos en el banco central, ha sido algo menor en la zona euro que en EE.UU. Sin embargo no está claro cuál es el mejor procedimiento para la estabilidad financiera.

En la zona euro, los bancos han atenuado la transmisión al considerar que no existe mucha demanda solvente para los créditos. Por el contrario, la Reserva Federal ha optado por comprar miles de millones en activos, muchos de ellos tóxicos. En este segundo caso, ya hace tiempo que se habla de cómo esta inyección de dinero en los mercados está creando burbujas en la bolsa norteamericana y en los bonos, especialmente en la categoría de bonos basura. El FMI advirtió recientemente del peligro de una nueva burbuja y hasta Bernanke habla de la necesidad de controlar la búsqueda de rendimiento y otras formas de asunción excesiva de riesgo típicas del proceso que derivó en la anterior burbuja.

Aunque siempre nos quedará Krugman: mientras haya desempleo no debemos preocuparnos de las burbujas. Pero, ¿es preferible una expansión “ciega” de compra de activos que pueda alimentar una nueva burbuja o una inyección “controlada” que permita a los bancos seleccionar proyectos rentables para invertir, con el peligro de que no concedan créditos a iniciativas viables? Apuesten. Cuando haya que revertir la situación ante la inminencia de un peligro veremos cuanta liquidez se puede extraer en cada caso antes de que aparezca la chica de la curva.

[Parado(x)]

ya se apuntó en el hilo por Starkiller entre otros partiendo del artículo de R.koo
: manguerazo si, pero menos y controlado

El BCE frente a la Fed, de José García Montalvo en La Vanguardia
En la zona euro, los bancos han atenuado la transmisión al considerar que no existe mucha demanda solvente para los créditos. Por el contrario, la Reserva Federal ha optado por comprar miles de millones en activos, muchos de ellos tóxicos. En este segundo caso, ya hace tiempo que se habla de cómo esta inyección de dinero en los mercados está creando burbujas en la bolsa norteamericana y en los bonos, especialmente en la categoría de bonos basura.

No son activos igualmente toxicos los bonos de paises quebrados? o de bancos igualmente quebrados?
No es una burbuja que los bonos de paises quebrados tengan un rendimiento cada vez menor mientras aumenta su deuda y se deteriora su situacion economica?

Si los mass media dicen que lo nuestro esta todo controlado y que los que descontrolan son los demas por hacer lo mismo (comprar activos a precio de no-mercado con dinero fresco), habra que creerles...

[Currobena]

Un ejemplo de Euroburrocracia en acción:

Government by Eurocrats: The Olive-Oil Dispenser Debacle     Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 7:20PM  Like so many debacles in the EU, it started with the unelected European Commission. It’s immune to voters, but not to lobbyists and corporations. Under the guise of “consumer protection” or “food safety” or some other harmless moniker, it generates zany laws that tend to benefit large corporations. But last week, it went too far, even for Europeans – not that they don’t already have enough crises on their hands. It passed a law that banned restaurants from serving olive oil in refillable containers, such as cruets or dipping bowls.
On January 1, 2014, their use would become illegal. Instead, olive oil would have to be served in a one-use-only bottle, labeled in accordance with EU standards, and equipped with a tamper-proof “hygienic” spout. A restaurant owner in Germany, for example, who buys his special olive oil from an artisan producer in Southern France, would be out of luck; that small producer wouldn’t be able to comply with the costly stipulations. The restaurant would have to switch to an industrial supplier that can ship the special restaurant bottles with their tamper-proof spout and EU label. The small producer would be cut out.
The Commission’s decision was made under a Eurocrat procedure, called comitology – though it sounds like it, I’m not making this up! It allows for legislation that is binding for all 27 Member States to be passed into law automatically, without majority support from those Member States.
Exactly! The evil that this new law was supposed to cure: olive oil fraud. Admittedly, it’s a big issue in Europe, in the US, and elsewhere, and some of the largest industrial brands, such as Bertolli, have gotten caught with their pants down. But this law wasn’t going after fraud at the corporate level. On the contrary. It was passed under heavy lobbying from corporate producers.
The law targeted restaurateurs trying to make their own decisions about olive oil. Ostensibly it aimed to protect consumers and their taste buds from cruets or dipping bowls that had been refilled with low-quality or adulterated olive oil ... the kind maybe that big brands like Bertolli and others were sued for selling in California. But when asked if they’d seen any evidence of adulterated olive oil on restaurant tables, an official told the Daily Telegraph, “We don’t have any evidence; it is anecdotal and that was enough for the committee.”
The decision exemplified what’s wrong with EU governance. But there were other issues with the harebrained law. It would create a cesspool of bureaucracy and mountains of additional trash, including the small one-use-only tamper-proof bottles with their spouts, boxes, and containers. And more oil would be wasted as the bottles – much like Ketchup bottles – would be designed to make it impossible to get all the oil out of them.
But this time, the Commission and its process of comitology were greeted with an outburst of loathing and mockery. Criticism was “universal and came from consumers and restaurant owners in all EU countries,” an EU official told the Telegraph. And it came from the very top. “This is exactly the sort of thing that Europe shouldn’t even be discussing,” explained UK Prime Minster David Cameron, with an eye on the real problems that are currently dogging Europe. “It shouldn’t even be on the table, to force a pun – so to speak,” he said. And Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told his parliament, “I think it is too bizarre for words and incomprehensible to come with this sort of proposal at a time like this.”
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, son of a small olive oil producer, apparently intervened, and on Thursday, European Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos threw in the towel. The law provoked some “misunderstanding,” though it was “intended to help consumers, to protect and inform them,” he said. But now that it was “clear that it cannot attract consumer support,” he’d withdraw it.
Not everyone jubilated. “It is totally ludicrous that the commission just withdraws this measure due to political pressure,” said Pekka Pesonen, general secretary of COPA-COGECA, a lobbying group representing industrial producers, and one of the forces behind the law. “Perhaps it wasn’t explained well enough. But it was necessary to ban refillable bottles and the traditional aceiteras found on restaurant tables....” etc. etc.
The thing isn’t dead yet. Ciolos said that he’d have a huddle with opponents and critics of the law in order to somehow resuscitate it – because it’s just too good to let die. So this law about olive oil in restaurants has morphed into a symbol of governance by Eurocrats – and their raggedy efforts to manage the economy of the EU.
The solar-panel industry, once fattened by taxpayer subsidies and false hopes, has been in a death spiral. In Germany, it has been brutal. Even large companies are licking their wounds. And yet, when the European Commission tried to protect manufacturers against cheap Chinese imports, the unexpected happened. Read.... Germany Fires Live Ammo In Sino-European Trade War ... At Brussels

La Comisión Europea aplica un procedimiento legal rápido que no necesita confirmación por los gobiernos locales para prohibir el aceite de oliva artesanal, con la excusa de evitar los aceites desnaturalizados. Naturalmente, el embotellado obligatorio elimina la competencia de las grandes empresas y perjudica a los pequeños productores, al aumentar sus gastos por unidad.

Prefiero pensar que es un error, porque la alternativa es que están ayudando activamente a las grandes empresas en detrimento de las pequeñas y de mejor calidad.

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/5/23/government-by-eurocrats-the-olive-oil-dispenser-debacle.html

P.D.: por si alguien quiere saber lo que es la comitología (no, no tiene nada que ver con los pájaros). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitology

[Parado(x)]

Traigo aqui una fuente muy citada y que cuenta con mucho prestigio en este hilo para que reciba su correspondiente owned:

http://www.leap2020.eu/El-GEAB-N-64-esta-disponible-Crisis-sistemica-global-Francia-2012-2014-El-gran-terremoto-republicano-y-su-impacto_a10102.html

Nuestro equipo considera que la victoria de François Hollande activará una serie de cambios estratégicos que afectarán profundamente a Europa acelerando considerablemente las transiciones geopolíticas que se están desarrollando a nivel mundial desde el comienzo de la crisis global en 2008. En esto, los resultados y las consecuencias de la elección presidencial francesa (5) tienen mucho más importancia que la de la próxima elección presidencial estadounidense de noviembre de 2012. Aunque Francia es un país mucho menos poderoso que los Estados Unidos, ocupa una posición estratégica tanto en Europa como a nivel mundial (particularmente por su papel dentro de Europa) que lo convierten en un actor clave en el surgimiento del « mundo de mañana », citando el título del libro de Franck Biancheri. Y la elección de François Hollande, que posee un verdadero pensamiento sobre Europa y el papel que debe cumplir Francia y que ha manifestando claramente su intención de explorar activamente las oportunidades de colaboración con los nuevos poderes emergentes (BRICS), significará un quiebre importante con la ausencia de visión y de estrategia europea de los cinco años de presidencia de Nicolas Sarkozy signados esencialmente por una subordinación sin precedentes en la Historia reciente del país al dominante poder estadounidense (6) y por su integración sin condiciones al eje Washington/TelAviv en lo esencial de los grandes problemas geopolíticos (7). Francia que desapareció del mundo desde hace cinco años (, está a punto de regresar (9), incluso más allá a la personalidad del futuro presidente (10).

Les ha salido rana Hollande... y el owned es antologico, Francois Hollande mas alineado con el eje Washington/Tel Aviv no puede estar.

Otra noticia que no encaja en absoluto con la vision de GEAB sobre la rivalidad EEUU - Europa es esta:

http://www.expansion.com/2013/02/13/economia/politica/1360718090.html

Europa y EEUU negocian el mayor acuerdo de libre comercio de la historia

[Маркс]

También se esperaba un giro opuesto a la Europa de Merkel... y naranjas de la China.

Hollande está asesorado por intelectuales contrarios a las directrices económicas y sociales de Bruselas, FMI, privatización de espacios públicos, universidades, etc...

Y nada de nada. Otro socialdemócrata más  . Tenía vagas esperanzas en él, pero eso, vagas.

Otro tigre de papel.

[Micru]

Ni mayor integración europea
Ni leyes contra la competencia desleal
Ni prohibición de importación de bienes que incumplan las legislaciones laborales europeas y de derechos humanos
Ni acciones contra los paraisos fiscales
Ni exigir a las multinacionales el cumplimiento de la legislación medioambiental europea aunque estén en otros lugares

No, en vez de esto mejor invertir la ridicula cantidad de 6.000 M en "fomentar" el empleo juvenil, que ya me veo "himbertidos" en observatorios y mamandurias varias. Y hasta luego lucas!


http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/06/19/union_europea/1371660242.html

[breades]

Pues no sé de dónde tomarán los datos pero a Richard Koo le sale una gráfica muy distinta de la que ha colgado Parado(x):

La grafica que he colgado corresponde a los balances de los distintos bancos centrales. La que has colgado tu, corresponde a la base monetaria.

Continúo en este post el debate revivido aquí porque he encontrado una gráfica equivalente a la que colgó el mes pasado:



http://www.merkfunds.com/merk-perspective/insights/2012-10-17.html


¿Cómo se explica las diferencias?

[sudden and sharp]

Pues no sé de dónde tomarán los datos pero a Richard Koo le sale una gráfica muy distinta de la que ha colgado Parado(x):

La grafica que he colgado corresponde a los balances de los distintos bancos centrales. La que has colgado tu, corresponde a la base monetaria.

Continúo en este post el debate revivido aquí porque he encontrado una gráfica equivalente a la que colgó el mes pasado:



http://www.merkfunds.com/merk-perspective/insights/2012-10-17.html


¿Cómo se explica las diferencias?

Mira este otro de El País, hoy:



El grafico que has puesto parece una suma de primeras derivadas.


Para resolver el "problema", habría que buscar los datos, ver qué significan y confeccionar gráficos propios. (La guerra de gráficos debería terminar...  )

[ Conoce alguien un buen enlace para empezar todos a estudiar... ]


EDIT: ¿Puede alguien corroborar esto?

...the sterilization of bond purchases by the European Central Bank, cause a central bank balance sheet to grow, even if sterilization reflects a “mopping up” of liquidity:

(del enlace de Breades)

[Parado(x)]

Continúo en este post el debate revivido aquí porque he encontrado una gráfica equivalente a la que colgó el mes pasado:



http://www.merkfunds.com/merk-perspective/insights/2012-10-17.html


¿Cómo se explica las diferencias?

Lo que pone esa grafica es porcentaje de cambio acumulado. Si la FED tenia un balance menor que el BCE porcentualmente aumentara mas que el BCE para llegar a una cantidad similar de balance.

Empieza en 2008. Cuall era el balance de la FED y del BCE en 2008? El balance del BCE casi doblaba al de la FED por lo tanto, porcentualmente, la FED tiene que aumentar mas para llegar a tener un balance similar al BCE

De nuevo la grafica que menciona sobre el balance de los bancos centrales (no la variacion porcentual del aumento desde una fecha concreta que es lo que sale en su grafico):

[Republik]

Recuerdo haber consultado esto en detalle hace un tiempo y aparte de lo cuantitativo, en lo cualitativo hay diferencias, el BCE tiene €500.000M en oro y una cantidad elevada en divisas/activos contra otros sistemas (FED, etc), mientras que el balance de la FED, aparte de haber crecido mucho aunque desde niveles inferiores, era todo "papel". Aunque la cosa se va moviendo, de todos modos lo suyo es que el balance de la FED sea algo menor porque la economía de los EEUU cuelga menos del sistema bancario en materia de préstamos, ya que existe un enorme mercado de emisiones de deuda y además de la FED, están "Fannie and Freddie" para acumular bonos hipotecarios.


http://soberlook.com/2012/07/ecbs-balance-sheet-hits-31-trillion.html


http://www.mybudget360.com/dynamic-central-banking-duo-ecb-balance-sheet-fed-reserve-balance-sheet-2012/

En todo caso está claro que la carrera hacia terrenos nunca exlorados en materia de expansión "bancocentralista" gana adeptos en todo el mundo, llamativo es también lo de China, incluso, por el momento, más llamativo que el caso japonés si comparamos sus actuales tamaños económicos e historial de acumulación de superavit por c/c.

[sudden and sharp]

He encontrado esto:

http://cib.natixis.com/flushdoc.aspx?id=65403

The ECB’s policy has primarily consisted in providing liquidity to banks, thus replacing the frozen interbank market. The ballooning of its balance sheet is therefore to a great extent linked to the sharp increase in demand for liquidity from banks at the two 3-year refinancing operations (unlimited allotment). The increase in the balance sheet is also explained by bond purchases, the amount of which has increased from EUR 100 bn in mid-2008 to around EUR 600 bn currently. The SMP, in place since May 2010, accounts for EUR 211 bn.

The Fed’s policy, qualified as quantitative policy, has mainly been characterised by an increase in its asset side via outright purchases of Treasuries or MBS.

The difference between the two policies is found in the fact that the increase in the ECB’s balance sheet to a great extent is the result of “actions” by the banks (demand for liquidity at the VLTROs), while that of the Fed results from its own willingness to buy securities. Furthermore, the Fed carries out outright purchases of securities, while the ECB grants liquidity via refinancing operations (collateral).

In addition, the objectives pursued by the ECB are to prevent a liquidity crisis, help the banks and thus dampen the risk of a credit crunch. The Fed, for its part, explicitly states that its actions aim to make monetary conditions more accommodating in order to boost the economy (via a fall in long-term interest rates, stimulus for stock markets, etc.).

Esto también parece interesante:

In Currency Wars, Balance Sheet Always Wins
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324156204578277760801392712.html

...
The balance-sheet data suggest the euro will continue to outperform the U.S. dollar, at least until investors perceive the Fed will stop expanding its balance sheet or the ECB begins expanding its balance sheet again at a pace greater than the Fed's.
...

Este va de "guerra de divisas", y de un euro más fuerte.

Y otro más:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201207/20120702ATT48168/20120702ATT48168EN.pdf




[ ...habrá que leerlos con calma. ]

[Starkiller]

EDIT: ¿Puede alguien corroborar esto?

...the sterilization of bond purchases by the European Central Bank, cause a central bank balance sheet to grow, even if sterilization reflects a “mopping up” of liquidity:

(del enlace de Breades)

Claro!

La cosa es simple: tenemos un chorrón de activos, y necesitamos el correspondiente líquido para moverlos. Pero no lo tenemos.

Podemos limitarnos a emitir líquido y más líquido, con la esperanza que este encuentre y llene los huecos, para que las cosas vuelvan a moverse. Esto es, "regar a manta". El resto del líquido fluye a la economía, "hinchándola".

O podemos emitir líquido "esterilizado", es decir, que solo vale por definición para rellenar esos huecos, y que en el momento en el que ya no es necesario rellenarlos, la mejor opción para el prestatario es devolverlo, o cambiarlo por deuda soberana. Esas son las ventanillas de liquidez "esterilizadas" del BCE.

Evidentemente, hinchan balance. Pero no pueden, por definición, generar inflación. Porque solo estan para cubrir huecos, y desaparece con esos huecos... aunque se mantenga en blanace, porque donde realmente ha ido es a deuda soberana.

A través de deuda soberana puedne ser levemente inflacionarios; pero solo levemente.

Y como, además, la deuda soberana acabará en quita real o virtual, las posibilidades de tener una inflación estancada que pueda "romper" en un momento dado son completamente nulas, a diferencia de loq ue pasa con la bolsa o stocks norteamericanos.

[Micru]

Je, je, un articulo brutal que han borrado de la web del TheGuardian, se ve que ha tocado algunas am-pollas 

Revealed: secret European deals to hand over private data to America

Germany 'among countries offering intelligence' according to new claims by former US defence analyst
    Jamie Doward   
    The Observer, Saturday 29 June 2013 21.02 BST   
    Jump to comments (400)

Wayne Madsen
Wayne Madsen, an NSA worker for 12 years, has revealed that six EU countries, in addition to the UK, colluded in data harvesting.

At least six European Union countries in addition to Britain have been colluding with the US over the mass harvesting of personal communications data, according to a former contractor to America's National Security Agency, who said the public should not be "kept in the dark".

Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the agency, names Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US.

Madsen said the countries had "formal second and third party status" under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

Under international intelligence agreements, confirmed by declassified documents, nations are categorised by the US according to their trust level. The US is first party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy second party relationships. Germany and France have third party relationships.

In an interview published last night on the PrivacySurgeon.org blog, Madsen, who has been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues, said he had decided to speak out after becoming concerned about the "half story" told by EU politicians regarding the extent of the NSA's activities in Europe.

He said that under the agreements, which were drawn up after the second world war, the "NSA gets the lion's share" of the sigint "take". In return, the third parties to the NSA agreements received "highly sanitised intelligence".

Madsen said he was alarmed at the "sanctimonious outcry" of political leaders who were "feigning shock" about the spying operations while staying silent about their own arrangements with the US, and was particularly concerned that senior German politicians had accused the UK of spying when their country had a similar third-party deal with the NSA.

Although the level of co-operation provided by other European countries to the NSA is not on the same scale as that provided by the UK, the allegations are potentially embarrassing.

"I can't understand how Angela Merkel can keep a straight face, demanding assurances from [Barack] Obama and the UK while Germany has entered into those exact relationships," Madsen said.

The Liberal Democrat MEP Baroness Ludford, a senior member of the European parliament's civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, said Madsen's allegations confirmed that the entire system for monitoring data interception was a mess, because the EU was unable to intervene in intelligence matters, which remained the exclusive concern of national governments.

"The intelligence agencies are exploiting these contradictions and no one is really holding them to account," Ludford said. "It's terribly undermining to liberal democracy."

Madsen's disclosures have prompted calls for European governments to come clean on their arrangements with the NSA. "There needs to be transparency as to whether or not it is legal for the US or any other security service to interrogate private material," said John Cooper QC, a leading international human rights lawyer. "The problem here is that none of these arrangements has been debated in any democratic arena. I agree with William Hague that sometimes things have to be done in secret, but you don't break the law in secret."

Madsen said all seven European countries and the US have access to the Tat 14 fibre-optic cable network running between Denmark and Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK and the US, allowing them to intercept vast amounts of data, including phone calls, emails and records of users' access to websites.

He said the public needed to be made aware of the full scale of the communication-sharing arrangements between European countries and the US, which predate the internet and became of strategic importance during the cold war.

The covert relationship between the countries was first outlined in a 2001 report by the European parliament, but their explicit connection with the NSA was not publicised until Madsen decided to speak out.

The European parliament's report followed revelations that the NSA was conducting a global intelligence-gathering operation, known as Echelon, which appears to have established the framework for European member states to collaborate with the US.

"A lot of this information isn't secret, nor is it new," Madsen said. "It's just that governments have chosen to keep the public in the dark about it. The days when they could get away with a conspiracy of silence are over."

This month another former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, revealed to the Guardian previously undisclosed US programmes to monitor telephone and internet traffic. The NSA is alleged to have shared some of its data, gathered using a specialist tool called Prism, with Britain's GCHQ.

Version eliminada
Version en el cache de Google

[tomasjos]

Oficialmente en la UE y en Alemania están que echan chispas con el tema

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/06/30/actualidad/1372584525_667287.html

Se está escenificando una ruptura USA-UE?