PPCC - Pisitófilos Creditófagos - PRiMaVeRa 2021

[Maloserá]

...Y parió la abuela.

El Constitucional alemán paraliza de forma provisional la ratificación del plan de recuperación europeo
Bruselas necesita que todos los países den el visto bueno en sus parlamentos a las ayudas de 750.000 millones

https://elpais.com/economia/2021-03-26/el-constitucional-aleman-paraliza-la-ratificacion-del-plan-de-recuperacion-europeo.html

El Tribunal Constitucional alemán ha dejado este viernes en el aire la puesta en marcha del fondo europeo de recuperación de 750.000 millones de euros, esperado con urgencia desde hace meses por los países más golpeados por la pandemia. La máxima corte alemana ha ordenado que Alemania no ratifique la ampliación del presupuesto comunitario, imprescindible para la puesta en marcha del fondo, hasta que se dirima un recurso de emergencia presentado este viernes para impedir esa ratificación. La decisión de los jueces bloquea sine die unos subsidios y préstamos que, en teoría, debían haber empezado a fluir desde el 1 de enero y de los que España espera obtener hasta 140.000 millones de euros....

[sudden and sharp]

...ya lo creo:








[ ThEy NeEd Us MoRe ThAn We NeEd ThEm ]
[ https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/md2wog/they_need_us_more_than_we_need_them/ ]

[Maloserá]

Sudden,

No seas ridículo. Sigues con la matraca. Olvidate de mi posición geográfica y lee mi mensaje por lo que vale. Estas obsesionado con UK y te tomas cada mensaje mio como que intento demostrar que la UE es un desastre.

Supéralo.

[pollo]

...Y parió la abuela.

El Constitucional alemán paraliza de forma provisional la ratificación del plan de recuperación europeo
Bruselas necesita que todos los países den el visto bueno en sus parlamentos a las ayudas de 750.000 millones

https://elpais.com/economia/2021-03-26/el-constitucional-aleman-paraliza-la-ratificacion-del-plan-de-recuperacion-europeo.html

El Tribunal Constitucional alemán ha dejado este viernes en el aire la puesta en marcha del fondo europeo de recuperación de 750.000 millones de euros, esperado con urgencia desde hace meses por los países más golpeados por la pandemia. La máxima corte alemana ha ordenado que Alemania no ratifique la ampliación del presupuesto comunitario, imprescindible para la puesta en marcha del fondo, hasta que se dirima un recurso de emergencia presentado este viernes para impedir esa ratificación. La decisión de los jueces bloquea sine die unos subsidios y préstamos que, en teoría, debían haber empezado a fluir desde el 1 de enero y de los que España espera obtener hasta 140.000 millones de euros....

Ojo, esto ya pasó otras tres veces por el mismo motivo (fondos europeos de varios tipos pagados por Alemania en totalidad o parte) y el tribunal todas las veces falló desestimando el recurso, presentado siempre si no recuerdo mal por el AfD. Consiguieron retrasarlo, eso sí.

[pollo]

...ya lo creo:








[ ThEy NeEd Us MoRe ThAn We NeEd ThEm ]
[ https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/md2wog/they_need_us_more_than_we_need_them/ ]

Hombre, a corto plazo sí que es beneficioso para muchos de ellos, que acaban de ganar poder adquisitivo. El problema es todo lo demás a medio plazo (los productores lo llevan jodido si el resto de costes no bajan).

[Currobena]

...ya lo creo:








[ ThEy NeEd Us MoRe ThAn We NeEd ThEm ]
[ https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/md2wog/they_need_us_more_than_we_need_them/ ]

Hombre, a corto plazo sí que es beneficioso para muchos de ellos, que acaban de ganar poder adquisitivo. El problema es todo lo demás a medio plazo (los productores lo llevan jodido si el resto de costes no bajan).

Me parece que si esta ruptura de las cadenas de suministro se mantiene, a medio plazo Brexit es la disolución de RU y a largo plazo la vuelta a una CEE. Y es posible que el proceso comience en Irlanda del Norte y no en Escocia, como piensa mucha gente.

[patxarana]

Me resulta paradójico
[...]
No entiendo nada.

Así es.

La inflación, tan deseada por el endeudado como por el inmocapitalistita, es socialmente 'autoparajódica', en el sentido de que no hay sistema productivo (Trabajo & Empresa) que lo resista a largo plazo.

El 'que-se-jodanismo' es una ilusión óptica miope de la inmocodicia parasitaria que nos corroe individualmente.

Como ese matar la gallina de los huevos de oro, del bendita-mierda-que-es-todo, menos nuestro ladrillo vacío.

Saludos.

Es que es lógico.  Ciertos fenómenos puntuales podrían explicar subidas puntuales y concretas en determinados bienes (escaseces de alimentos concretos por fenómenos climáticos, energía durante una crisis, desastres que estrangulen producción de determinados bienes, etc.) pero a poco que se reflexione, no tiene sentido estadísticamente el aumento de precio progresivo a lo largo de décadas de un bien concreto cuando no pasa lo mismo con otros.

Lo normal y esperable es que cuando existen fluctuaciones de precios se produzcan readaptaciones a lo largo del tiempo. Aquí no se ha readaptado nada, sólo ha ido hacia arriba porque se ha hecho de todo para que así fuera.

Y por supuesto, ese aumento desorbitado no se ha incluido en ningún índice, debe ser porque no tiene importancia en la economía de nadie. Si encima eliminamos cualquier tipo de feedback, es imposible que nada se adapte.

Si la vivienda se hubiese incluido en el IPC con su peso real por decir algo muy grosso modo habría que haber aumentado retribuciones en muchos sectores. El peso de la vivienda en los gastos de muchas familias puede ser hoy día tranquilamente entre el 50 y 80%. Lo que ha ocurrido en realidad es un empobrecimiento brutal que se intenta tapar. Y además un empobrecimiento artificial.

Según la versión oficial, la vivienda no se incluye en el IPC porque no se considera un gasto sino una inversión. (hablo de oidas)

Creo que podría haber una explicación racional para que la mayoría de los bienes estén manteniendo su precio a largo plazo, mientras que algunos vayan subiendo de forma imparable: sería un aumento desigual de la productividad.

Para la mayoría de los bienes de consumo la productividad no ha dejado de aumentar gracias a la automatización, las tecnologías de la información y la optimización de procesos. Sin embargo, para el consumidor estos bienes siguen proporcionando el mismo valor de uso (bueno, a veces una camiseta dura cuatro lavados o los tomates no saben a nada, ya sabemos). Si el precio de esos bienes se mantiene, nos da la impresión de que pagamos igual por lo mismo, pero no es cierto: estaríamos pagando igual por menos trabajo de otros (en general, por menos coste).

Por otro lado, para aquellos bienes y servicios más intensivos en mano de obra, la productividad no ha aumentado apenas. Casos extremos serían las peluquerías, la hostelería o el cuidado de personas. Y también lo podrían ser otros por los que no pagamos directamente, como la educación. No soy experto, pero me da la impresión de que en la construcción tampoco ha aumentado la productividad considerablemente en los últimos 20 años.

Sabiendo esto, si la cesta de la compra que define el IPC está llena sobre todo de productos de consumo, que no han variado su precio pero ahora son más "baratos" de producir (en términos de horas de trabajo y otros costes), lo que querría decir es que esa cesta ha necesitado mucho menos trabajo para producirse, y aun así nos sigue costando el mismo dinero.

Comparativamente, aquellos bienes o servicios donde la productividad no ha aumentado, deberían de subir de precio con respecto a los demás. Diría que esto es lo que ocurre en otros países con un nivel de vida más alto que en España: los bienes de consumo prácticamente tienen el mismo precio en Holanda que en España; sin embargo, las peluquerías y los restaurantes son significativamente más caros. Si en España no ha ocurrido este proceso solo puede ser porque esos sectores se han depauperizado cada vez más, seguramente por la mano de obra inmigrante.

Dicho esto, no sé hasta qué punto se puede aplicar este razonamiento a bienes que no son capital, porque no se producen y son escasos por naturaleza, como el espacio urbano consolidado (el "suelo").

También, si cada vez se produce más con menos, pero los sueldos apenas se han movido, eso demuestra claramente que hay una transferencia de renta de los trabajadores que producen esos bienes a otros sectores de la sociedad.

¡Saludos!

Enviado desde mi Aquaris X mediante Tapatalk

[sudden and sharp]

Sudden,

No seas ridículo. Sigues con la matraca. Olvidate de mi posición geográfica y lee mi mensaje por lo que vale. Estas obsesionado con UK y te tomas cada mensaje mio como que intento demostrar que la UE es un desastre.

Supéralo.

Yo no le digo a nadie lo que tiene o no tiene que postear. Ni que decir tiene que por mi parte no sigo consejos ni indicaciones...

Acéptalo.

[Maloserá]

Sudden,

No seas ridículo. Sigues con la matraca. Olvidate de mi posición geográfica y lee mi mensaje por lo que vale. Estas obsesionado con UK y te tomas cada mensaje mio como que intento demostrar que la UE es un desastre.

Supéralo.

Yo no le digo a nadie lo que tiene o no tiene que postear. Ni que decir tiene que por mi parte no sigo consejos ni indicaciones...

Acéptalo.

Yo lo tengo aceptadísimo. No he dicho que no pudieses escribir eso, sino quería destacar lo ridículo que es que no pueda postear nada de la UE porque me venga después un 'y tú mas' Como si estuvieses convencido de que estoy en una batalla permanente por menospreciar la UE.

Ya que me va a caer una leche por comentar de Europa, pues al menos voy a dar razones. El mensaje de la exportación es ridículo en un momento en que tras el Brexit, UK parece el único gobierno europeo actuando con seriedad vacunando a la población rápido. Cuando íbamos a morir todos al salir y ponías las fotos de las estanterías de un super de Belfast sin calabacines.

Mientras la UE ha mandado registrar fabricas y hangares de empresas privadas usando GEOs belgas e italianos, han enmierdado la que es en este momento la vacuna mas fácil de usar, mas barata y probablemente mas efectiva. Y mas tradicional y por tanto mas segura. Han conseguido que la población le tenga miedo por un caso por millón de coágulos raros, mientras una docena de miles de personas van a morir esta semana por una enfermedad a la que precisamente esa vacuna quita el riesgo de morir. Y después consiguen que las ayudas para el Covid sean insuficientes y vayan a llegar (si llegan) 18 meses despues de la crisis.

Y mientras aquí ni una palabra, ni una crítica a la UE (salvo excepciones). Es el tótem. Mentalo, y te saco las cifras de exportaciones de 'breakfast cereals' de Enero  Y despues Marruecos está mas vacunado que la UE, y no entendemos nada.

Happy to discuss.

[sudden and sharp]

Copypasteo de un comentario a:

The EU always fails
https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/mc1t8d/the_eu_always_fails/

Nothing wrong with calling out the failures of the EU, but any organisation has it's failures and successes. The single market is a success, so is the customs union. European law seem to work reasonably well, and there's not been a war among member states since WW2. When's the last time Europe saw 75 years of uninterrupted peace? So, lots of successes then.

And if trusting the British not to try and monopolise a vaccine counts as a failure, then I think you have a truly craven look on international relationships.

Of course the other unarticulated assumption made in this article, is that the situation would have been better if member states had acted individually. No evidence is provided, because you can't prove a counterfactual. And then there's stuff like this:

   

Indeed, there is no logical reason why EU countries could not have been allowed to pursue independent vaccine development, procurement and roll-out. Except for the fact that any such conclusion runs counter to the heart of the EU’s fundamental principle: that its members must act in concert.

Member states were allowed to do exactly that, as Britain demonstrated. And would Britain's vaccination program have been as successful if individual member states would all have procured with AZ separately? Wouldn't maybe one or two of them have been quick and savvy enough to snatch away doses before the Brits could get their grubby paws on them? Who knows.

Porque se ve que el "argumentario" no da para más...

[Derby]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-finance/britain-and-eu-strike-financial-services-cooperation-pact-idUSKBN2BI2Q4?rpc=401&

Britain and EU strike financial services cooperation pact

Britain’s finance ministry said the two sides have agreed terms on a “Memorandum of Understanding” that will set the conditions for how regulators from the EU and Britain share information.

However, Brussels has said the MoU will not automatically lead to Britain’s large financial industry being able to sell a wide range of products and services to EU clients again.

Industry experts said while the framework was useful, it was unlikely to rekindle anything like the kind of access banks and brokers had to the EU before Britain left the bloc.(...)

[Derby]

Otro que piensa que hay un plan (Great Reset plan)...francamente, no creo que haya ningún masterplan. Sólo hay que ver estos días cómo se desarrolla el accidente ocurrido en el Canal de Suez.

http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO26Mar2021.php

Will a China Real Estate Collapse Trigger the Global Meltdown?

Prevailing financial sector “wisdom” holds that while the bond and stock markets of the US and EU are dangerously inflated following huge COVID borrowings and unprecedented central bank measures, that China is the one example of a market suitable for investment as it has managed to get beyond COVID and restart its economy. A closer look at recent official measures by Chinese financial regulators and the Bank of China suggest it is anything but safe, and that its domestic real estate sector could be a bubble whose collapse can trigger a global financial catastrophe beyond any seen in modern history.

(...)Last September, China’s Evergrande Group, as of 2018 the world’s most valuable real estate company with some $121 billion in real estate and related debt, underwent a cash crisis owing to its excessive debt burden and the slowing economy. In a desperate effort to develop new revenue sources, the real estate group has diversified into solar panels, pig farming, agribusiness, and baby formula. Not a reassuring sign.

The Evergrande crisis is for the time being under control, as it sells billions of assets to reduce debt. However the scare led Beijing authorities to double down on local hidden real estate debts.

According to the state’s National Institution for Finance and Development estimate, total local hidden debt reached an impressive 14.8 trillion yuan or $ 2.3 trillion in 2020. That’s likely very conservative. Standard & Poors estimates the total at between 30 trillion yuan (US$4.2 trillion) to 40 trillion yuan (US $6.1 trillion). Even that may be conservative, as it is deliberately hidden. Since January strict new rules from the central authorities seek to kill or cap such hidden real estate loans in a drive to shift investment into local infrastructure and industry—dual circulation.

On March 16 Liu Guiping, a deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China wrote about financial risk, “We need to… actively and effectively curb the spread of financial risk contagion, and resolutely maintain the bottom line of avoiding systemic financial risks.” That however is easier said than done.

China’s domestic debt has been growing at an average annual rate of around 20 per cent since 2008, far faster than its gross domestic product, a recipe for serious trouble. Official data showed that outstanding household debt, including mostly real estate debt, at the end of 2020 stood at 63.19 trillion yuan (US$9.7 trillion). That’s equivalent of 62 per cent of Chinese gross domestic product.

In 2021 a record 7.1 trillion yuan ($1.1 trillion) of such special local bonds come due and must be rolled over to avoid collapse of local governments. That will mean that the big state banks must somehow finance the local debt, much of it of dubious or “junk bond” value. This, just as Beijing demands the banks finance new infrastructure and growth initiatives outside real estate while also reducing own debt. Despite official loans from Beijing to local authorities to finance small and mid-size business, South China Morning Post reports that in some cases the financing was being obtained by dummy shell corporations and then used illegally for real estate investments.

If troubles in this local bond market spill over into the national sovereign bond market, a huge market worth a staggering $18 trillion, that would drive bond rates far higher, triggering a wave of local defaults in less viable projects including real estate. It is certain that the PBOC, the state central bank, would then pump liquidity to save its giant state banks. But given the scale of the debt, that could well force liquidation of China dollar assets abroad, including its estimated $1.04 trillion of US Treasury debt, as well as Euro bonds.

Ironically, major Wall Street firms such as Ray Dalio’s Bridgewater or BlackRock, and major Wall Street banks, have been investing in the promise of a China economic recovery. With the US bond markets on a razor’s edge in recent weeks with a new $1.9 trillion Biden stimulus and national debt soaring skywards, it would take little from a China bond crisis to trigger a repeat of the 1931 Austria crisis. Only this time, the entire world economy is bound in a debt system that is out of control. As of January, global debt has climbed to a record $281 trillion, adding an unprecedented $24 trillion in 2020 for corona measures. It looks like this is all part of the Great Reset plan: Blame China for what the BIS central bankers, the real gods of money have engineered since 2008.

[CHOSEN]

Los políticos alemanes están vendiendo MAL el fondo de rescate COVID a sus votantes.
Quizá los países rescatados deban serlo a la luz del mediodía, con acta de rendición mediante, para que el votante alemán medio deje de creer que le están tomando el pelo.

[Derby]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhockett/2021/01/19/what-backs-the-dollar-easy-production/?sh=56de1c4e6556

What ‘Backs’ The Dollar? Easy: Production

Some people falsely assume that money is ‘backed’ only by something that already exists – something that exists before new money is issued. They imagine a fixed quantum of gold, for example, or some other commodity or precious metal. When these people hear pundits or politicians attacking the Fed for ‘printing money,’ they accordingly assume it’s a bad thing – something that automatically causes … inflation.

But this is a mistake – a mistake with huge consequences. And it’s not hard to se why.

Let’s start with inflation. The thing to remember about inflation is that it’s a relation. Say that again: Inflation is a relation. To simplify slightly, it’s a relation between the quantity of money on the one hand, and the quantity of available goods and services on the other hand. Hence the colloquial definition of inflation as ‘too much money chasing too few goods.’

When there is ‘too much money chasing too few goods,’ prices rise and we get inflation – more dollars per good or service. The same thing also happens in reverse, as has been happening in labor markets since even before the crisis of 2008: there can be too little money chasing available goods or services, including labor services. That is why real wages are down – i.e., why there’s not inflation, but deflation in labor markets.

Remembering that inflation or deflation is a relation enables us to see something else – namely, what really ‘backs’ our money. What really backs our money is not simply stuff that already exists, but stuff we use money to bring in to existence – that is, stuff we spend money to produce. You know about money we spend in this way – it has its own name. Money spent in production is called productive investment. And productive investment is counter-inflationary.   

We’ve all heard the adage, ‘it takes money to make money.’ What this means is that, in a decentralized exchange economy like ours, you have to invest money to make the things and provide the services that people buy with money. But this means there’s an easy way to spend – and ‘create’ – money without creating inflation: you just spend it in ways that produce the very goods and provide the very services that the new money pays for.

That is to say you productively invest it. As long as those goods and services supplies grow in tandem with the money supply, you don’t get ‘too much money chasing too few goods.’ The new goods and services ‘absorb’ the new money. That’s why it is so important to tell yourself, over and over: Inflation is a relation.

So what about the Fed in all of this? Does it really just ‘print money’? And would that need be bad were it true?

Well, in a sense I’ll unpack the Fed does ‘print money,’ but that is not a bad thing if new money brings new goods and services – more ‘real wealth’ – as just explained.

Start by looking at a dollar bill. Across the top you will see the words ‘Federal Reserve Note.’ ‘Note’ here is short for ‘promissory note,’ more colloquially known as an ‘IOU.’ What’s being promised on Fed promissory notes? Well, look further below, where you will read that the note is legal tender ‘for all debts public and private.’ The promise is that this bill will be accepted in payment for anything you might owe – including the prices of goods or services that you buy.

Those are what ‘back’ the dollar – the things you can buy with it. Just like gold’s ‘backing’ the dollar in olden days meant you could buy gold with dollars from banks. (The ‘gold standard’ has been dead for nearly a century, and had not been around long even back when it died.) 

The implication for inflation is obvious: If the Fed ‘prints’ money that is directed to production – production of goods and services that are then paid for with money and in that sense ‘back’ the money – then the money supply and the goods and services supply can be kept in balance. No necessary inflation or deflation. And that is exactly what Fed ‘money creation’ is for. It is there to fuel greater goods and service ‘creation’ – greater wealth creation – in a manner that maintains balance between money supplies and goods and service supplies.

In this sense, again, it is not merely past stuff – stuff like gold – that ‘backs’ our money. It is likewise future stuff that does this – the stuff we produce, the new stuff that Fed money enables us to pay to produce and then purchase in our exchange economy.

So what is this ‘Fed money’ to which I refer, and how does it fuel production? Well, we can start by by returning to that funny word ‘printing’ …

The paper currency supply is only a tiny fraction of our national money supply. The far larger part is bank account money that the Fed uses ‘computer keystrokes,’ not printing presses, to ‘create.’ When the Fed aims to inject more money into the economy to fuel more growth – that is, production – it credits bank accounts with more lending power, and then hopes that the banks will lend the resultant ‘bank money’ (a.k.a. ‘credit-money’) to productive enterprises.

Unfortunately, however, much of our nation’s bank money flows not to producers in the ‘real’ economy, but to Wall Street financial markets. It is used there to purchase financial assets that are not being newly created as claims on new wealth, but that already exist. This leads the money supply in those markets to exceed the asset supply (‘too much money chasing too few assets’), which does cause inflation – inflation of the asset prices.

You have been hearing about these asset price inflations continually over the last 40 years. The only reason you might not know this is because we use a different word for Wall Street inflations – we call them ‘bubbles.’

Wall Street likes you to think and say ‘bubble’ instead of ‘inflation’ (or even ‘hyperinflation’) because it knows that you worry about inflation while probably thinking that bubbles affect only Wall Street. But that’s incorrect. Every dollar that fuels an asset price bubble is a dollar that’s not fueling production, hence a dollar that’s not growing real wealth. It’s a waste. And we know after 2008, as we earlier learned after 1929, that it’s a very destructive kind of waste. It harms not only Wall Street, but also Main Street - at least when Main Street’s indebted.

What can we do about this? How can we vouchsafe new money’s fueling Main Street production instead of Wall Street inflation?

If we want new money to flow not to Wall Street speculation but to Main Street production, and hence to fuel not asset inflation but real wealth creation, we must redirect the money the Fed ‘creates.’ We must deliberately aim it at Main Street, not Wall Street.

Here’s how to do that...

The Fed exists to assist the investment process. That’s why we founded it over a century ago. One way the Fed assists the private investment process is through what is called the Fed ‘Discount Window.’ ‘Discounting’ is a banking term for purchasing now something that will pay out more later. If Jack gives Jill an IOU on which he will pay later – say $100 after one year – Jill has an asset that doesn’t ‘mature’ till next year. This is the nature of most long term ‘investment securities’ and short term ‘commercial paper.’

If Jill needs or wants money now, she can sell this asset that Jack has issued. She can sell, that is, the ‘accounts receivable’ owed her by Jack. But no one will buy it for the full ‘face value’ of $100, because Jack doesn’t pay that until next year. Buyers today will accordingly ‘discount’ the note – they will pay less than $100 now for $100 later. (That’s called ‘the time value of money.’) The buyers will, in other words, invest now for more later.

The Fed does this too, through the aforementioned Discount Window. Again to simplify slightly, it tells banks that it will buy IOUs from them – IOUs given them by the borrowers to whom banks lend money. Buying these IOUs before they come due, the Fed will pay less than their face value, ‘discounting’ them just like the buyers to whom Jill might sell Jack’s IOU in our story just now. It will also impose certain conditions on what it will buy – not just any Jack’s IOUs will be worth the risk of default where the Fed is concerned.

And here lies is the key to making Fed money productive. Currently, the principal conditions the Fed imposes at the Discount Window are safety and profitability conditions. In other words, all the Fed asks of the banks before buying their IOUs is that these be likely to pay what is owed, not default, and to do so within a brief span of time. The Fed pays little attention to what the IOU money is actually spent on, be it productive or merely speculative, so long as the ‘project’ is safe and short-term. 

But this means a Wall Street speculator with a big diversified portfolio and a profitable betting record is as eligible for Fed money as is a productive entrepreneur with a great new technology. In fact, the speculator might even be more eligible if he tends to make higher short-term profits in aggregate than does the tech entrepreneur. (She might be taking more risks - but risks that we want real ‘makers’ to take.) This is why Fed money now inflates bubbles on Wall Street even while doing so little for our ‘real,’ productive economy.

There is a ready solution to this problem: Spread the Fed…

Here is what I mean. First, we add one more requirement to eligibility for Fed discounting: insist that projects eligible for Fed lending be likely not only to be profitable, but also to be productive – to bring real goods and services, real wealth, into existence. And second, we assign all twelve of the regional Federal Reserve Banks, which are located all over our country for this very purpose, the task of proactively seeking out promising candidates for this form of productive project lending.

Something like this is what the Fed’s founders had in mind just over a century ago. Carter Glass (of Glass-Steagall renoun), Paul Warburg (who learned banking in highly productive Germany), ... this is what they had in mind. The founders founded the Fed as a network of regional development institutions. It is why we have regional Federal Reserve Banks, in the plural, and why we speak of ‘the Federal Reserve System,’ rather than ‘the Federal Reserve Bank.’ (There is no such thing as ‘the Federal Reserve Bank.’)

But in the past 50 years nearly all of the Fed action has taken place in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – the one next to Wall Street, where trading securities with ‘dealer banks’ is the preferred mode of money supply modulation. That is just one of our twelve regional Fed Banks!

There is no reason to amputate eleven of the Fed’s twelve limbs in this way, and every reason not to do so. All of the regional Fed banks should be lending – from Boston to New York and Cleveland; from Richmond to Atlanta; from Chicago, St. Louis, and Kansas City on out to Dallas and San Francisco. That’s what they’re for – that’s why we have Regional Federal Reserve Banks. The current arrangement is precisely what Carter Glass and Paul Warburg sought to avoid - a Northeastern speculator’s bank.

Meanwhile, entrepreneurs all over our country are waiting for our Regional Fed Banks to reactivate. They are waiting for the Fed to finance production all over our country, not mere speculation at the southern tip of Manhattan, two blocks from my home.

Spread the Fed, as originally intended, and spread the Fed’s money – those ‘Federal Reserve Notes’ and their accounting equivalent – productively across every town’s Main Street, and we’ll have a People’s Fed, not a gamblers’ Fed centered on Wall Street. We will have real growth and prosperity, without Wall Street or Main Street inflation. You can find much more detail on just how to do this right here.

[pedrito]

Los políticos alemanes están vendiendo MAL el fondo de rescate COVID a sus votantes.
Quizá los países rescatados deban serlo a la luz del mediodía, con acta de rendición mediante, para que el votante alemán medio deje de creer que le están tomando el pelo.

Ya les tomaron el pelo con el MOU 2012:
https://www.mineco.gob.es/stfls/mineco/prensa/ficheros/noticias/2012/120720_MOU_espanyol_2_rubrica_MECC_VVV.pdf

Las autoridades españolas realizarán una estimación del valor económico y contable de las carteras de crédito y los activos de hipotecas ejecutadas de los 14 grupos bancarios. La estimación correrá a cargo de un consultor externo, que se basará en los datos aportados por cuatro auditores independientes, y se desarrollará como sigue:

Partiendo en un muestreo prefijado de operaciones, la revisión contable comprenderá lo siguiente: i) análisis de la calidad de los datos, incluida la correcta identificación de los   préstamos   reestructurados/refinanciados;   ii)   verificación   de   la   adecuada clasificación de las operaciones; iii) revisión del cálculo de las pérdidas por deterioro de los activos; y iv) valoración del impacto de los nuevos requisitos de provisiones tanto en los créditos cobrables como en los incobrables en el sector inmobiliario y de la construcción

Después hicieron la valoración de los hactivos como les salió de ahí, para salvar a los hipotacados pisitófilos de la quema, y para que las autoridades españolas salvaran tambien su sucio culo de la reacción pisitófila, a costa del dinero del contribuyente europeo (tambien de los contribuyentes españoles, aunque muchos de ellos eran los beneficarios)

Como vuelvan a engañar a los Uropeos, me postro(*) ante las autoridades españolas y me hago adepto al régimen.

Postrarse: Ponerse de rodillas ante una persona en actitud de respeto o de súplica.