Tema: PPCC-Pisitófilos Creditófagos-Invierno 2022

[sudden and sharp]

El otrora llamado smart money... no parece perder el tiempo.   








[ Fiesta en Chicago...  ]

[sudden and sharp]

 











 

[Derby]

https://chartstorm.substack.com/p/weekly-s-and-p500-chartstorm-15-january

1. Make or Break Time:  Yes that’s right it’s everyone’s favorite downward sloping trendline chart updated again to the latest price developments. At this point it is literally right on the cusp of a potential breakout (…or fakeout! -- not a done deal, and not meaningful until a clean+clear break is established).

(also n.b. the symmetrical triangle at the end there — the textbook says symmetrical triangles are continuation patterns, so in this case it would be continuation of the largely bearish price action that preceded it)

2. Earnings as a Catalyst?  With earnings season set to kick into full-swing in the next few weeks (concentrated around the last week of Jan + first week of Feb), it's interesting to note how deeply pessimistic earnings sentiment has become.

Bull take: easy to surprise against (even if mediocre).

Bear take: if confirmed = bad news, recession, bear down.

[sudden and sharp]

 

[Derby]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-13/how-far-apart-are-uk-and-eu-in-brexit-talks-on-the-northern-ireland-protocol

How Far Apart Are the UK and EU on a Brexit Deal?

The UK and European Union are poised to enter the final stretch of negotiations over post-Brexit trading arrangements for Northern Ireland. After years of distrust and tension both sides are optimistic that a settlement is within reach. 

Nevertheless, there are a host of important and tricky areas left to resolve before a durable solution is found. 

Here are the outstanding issues, ranked in order of difficulty, starting with the easiest to settle and finishing with the hardest.

Most achievable

Customs: This week’s announcement that the EU has agreed to use the UK’s live database tracking goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland lays the foundation for an agreement on customs. The UK has proposed separating goods just going to Northern Ireland and those which will continue into the EU into “green” and “red” lanes, underpinned by a “trusted trader” program. That would significantly reduce checks on goods that stay within the UK. The EU has proposed an “express” lane, which would still require suppliers to complete some customs paperwork. 

What now? The two sides take a different approach but aren’t worlds apart — if the EU is confident it can make real-time risk assessments on goods by using the database, a customs deal is seen as the next likely staging post in the talks. 

Tariffs: EU chief negotiator Maros Sefcovic sounded optimistic over a hefty EU duty charged on some British steel sent to Northern Ireland last year. The region has a long tradition of shipbuilding — the Titanic was built in Belfast — and a deal could see British steel arriving in Northern Ireland exempted from tariffs. 

What now? Willingness to agree means a deal on tariffs is seen as quickly achievable. 

More difficult

State aid, taxation: The UK wants to be able to extend subsidy controls and tax breaks, including changes to value-added tax, to Northern Ireland. This would mean EU state aid and VAT rules would not apply in the region — with implications for EU member states who see this as potentially anti-competitive. 

This gets to the heart of the problem with Northern Ireland after Brexit: how to regulate for the reality that this region sits within both the UK and the EU single markets. In the end, the UK may be forced to accept that the trade-off for Northern Ireland having access to the EU trading bloc means it follows EU rules. 

What now? A UK compromise on state aid would limit the British ability to give financial support to the region, so an agreement will be trickier. Alternatively, a trust-based approach might see the EU accept guarantees that the UK won’t make substantial subsidies, coupled with carve-outs for VAT rules on certain products, like alcohol.

Hardest to achieve

Sanitary checks: Reaching a deal on checks for livestock and agri-foods will be far more difficult. The UK no longer follows EU regulations, so physical checks must be carried out at the Irish Sea border. This is particularly important to the EU, which wants to ensure no disease is passed into their single market. 

What now? It will be challenging to satisfy the EU while reducing border checks enough to convince the UK there won’t be a significant disruption to trade. Some exemptions might be made, like enforcing fewer checks for retail goods being sold solely in Northern Ireland. A deal is unlikely unless safeguards are increased — the EU needs to be confident that if a crisis does occur, snapback mechanisms are in place.

Governance: The dispute over the role of the European Court of Justice is a political one for the UK. It wants to strip the court of its role in settling disputes over the protocol, replacing it with an independent arbitration panel. But that’s a (legal) red line for the EU. A compromise might involve a combination of an arbitration body with the ECJ still having oversight of EU law, but the EU might not want to go that far.

What now? Agreement would require compromise on both sides and it won’t be an easy sell to Northern Ireland unionists or Brexit-supporting MPs in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party.

Any other business?

Other outstanding issues range from pet passports to the electricity market. The status of Gibraltar — another long-running Brexit sticking-point — as well as a financial services agreement and the UK’s membership of the Horizon research program also remain unresolved.

Can we expect a deal — and when? 

There remains a way to go, despite genuine progress this week. Sefcovic and UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly are due to meet on Monday, seeking to enter the so-called “tunnel” of closed-door negotiations. 

While both sides would like to reach a deal — or at least an outline of one — before the 25th anniversary of Northern Ireland’s peace deal in April, there is a risk that significant progress will be made before talks stall on a more challenging issue like the role of the ECJ.

Even if they clinch a settlement, the Democratic Unionist Party may yet reject it. The UK’s main gripe with the protocol is that unionists in Northern Ireland don’t like it, and the region has been without a functioning government for nearly a year as a result. Sunak is also on shaky ground with some in his own party, though Conservatives are less likely to rebel if the DUP endorses any deal.

[Manu Oquendo]

El rechazo ideológico hacia lo que se denomina despectivamente capitalismo popular explica bastante bien la idea del ser humano que late tras dicha campaña de creación de opinión. Es fácilmente reconocible --ya lo hemos visto en relación al vehículo privado--  y se trataría de proyectar como deseable la idea de un ser humano más dependiente de la autoridad, menos libre, más controlado. Es decir, algo que no se puede decir a la cara a los afectados que son muchos más del 70% de la población.
Esto de vendernos las delicias de la sumisión lo intentó Locke y lo intentó Rousseau, al igual que Fichte,  el Abbé Sìèyes y todos los predecesores de Marx. Todos convenientemente adictos al modelo de poder descrito por Marsilio de Padua en el siglo XIV  como "Plenitudo Poestatis". Todo mentira: el ser humano o es libre o no es tan humano como se le proclama.

Por mantener la cuestión dentro de la corrección política lo dejaremos en que hay ideologías que ven la dependencia de la persona como "más deseable" que la independencia .
Lo estamos viendo en grado superlativo cada día que seguimos bajo gobiernos en tránsito hacia formas de poder sin contrapesos reales, más totalitarias y despóticas. Más integradas verticalmente. Ahora llega el espectáculo sangrante de Davos con los desfiles de "Petites Maîtres" --vulgo petimetres-- para ofrecerse al servicio de la élite global para "gobernarnos". Para pastorearnos.  Realmente obsceno. ¿Los votaremos a pesar de ello?

También  lo vemos en la degradación totalitaria de los sistemas de "educación" occidentales. En las Universidades USA ya solo se apuntan a Ingenierías alumnos orientales. 
Aquí un excepcional documento de Charlotte I. Thomson que les recomiendo se bajen para consultarlo de vez en cuando. https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/deliberate-dumbing-down-america-chronological/author/charlotte-iserbyt-thomson-thomson-iserbyt/?cm_mmc=ggl-_-US_Shopp_Trade50up-_-product_id=-_-keyword=&gclid=CjwKCAiA5Y6eBhAbEiwA_2ZWIfWiI3rrEVOzGQdlIxfRiC4qi8b6weV3O1I2CfW-Hyj176VonnqUShoCKFEQAvD_BwE



Ayer mismo MIguel Buesa nos recordaba en un corto de prensa que hace ya casi 80 años que Occidente no produce un solo descubrimiento de ruptura de Paradigma científico. Precisamente cuando se ha multiplicado por 100 el número de investigadores y a efectos prácticos hemos "funcionarizado" la investigación.

Pero cómo vamos a producirlo si ya existe lo nunca visto: el dogma oficial y el insulto al disidente que nunca recibirá fondos para investigar y tendrá que dejar su carrera docente porque estará marcado.


Hace unos días, creo que en la página 26 o quizás algo antes, comentamos la conveniencia de tener en la biblioteca las dos obras principales de Adam Smith y leerlas reflexivamente con alguna frecuencia. Hay buenas y muy económicas ediciones. En torno a los 15 euros.

La razón es que  todos los regímenes políticos tratan de construir lo que los profesores de Sociología y Política denominan "el hombre nuevo" y esta búsqueda del "hombre nuevo" es la razón por la cual Occidente lleva décadas degradando sus sistemas educativos ante nuestro silencio sorprendido. Sin que se escuche siquiera un murmullo aunque algunos jóvenes ya se han dado cuenta de que el sistema educativo no tiene el menor interés en que aprendan.


He citado la obra de Smith porque en cada uno de estos dos libros aparece una vez la tan prostituida expresión "la mano invisible" , expresión que se usa hoy día para poner en boca de este autor lo que nunca dijo y al tiempo que se oculta lo que sí dijo.

Y cuando dice que es mejor invertir en casa que en el extranjero estaba diciendo algo evidente porque, al hacerlo, la "mano invisible" traería más prosperidad a casa, "at home". Sin embargo a renglón seguido enfatiza que el mayor enemigo de esta prosperidad no es otro que las incesantes maquinaciones de los monopolistas y oligopolistas.  Pero esto se calla.

Hoy podríamos añadir que no solo los monopolistas son el peligro sino también sus amos y promotores que, sin la menor duda, son aquellos que ejercen desde los gobiernos las formas de  poder a las que se refería Marsilio de Padua.

Las bolsas suben y bajan, como los activos fijos desde que se valoran contablemente "a mercado" en vez del coste histórico.

Esto afecta tanto a personas físicas como jurídicas pero recordarán ustedes que históricamente la rentabilidad (IRR de Cash-Flows) del Real Estate siempre se homogeneizó en torno al tipo de interés. Lo cual es lógico y no debe sorprender a nadie.

Un inversor normalito lo sabe y trata de cubrirse usando la prudencia. Una virtud que como otras virtudes es denostada y a veces perseguida.  Pero desde que los mercados se prostituyeron con las compras y ventas a crédito dejaron de ser mercados y se convirtieron en casinos. Algo que los inversores también saben perfectamente y huyen de ellos.

Luego vino otra trampa sobre el pequeño inversor independiente: La discriminación Fiscal. 

Es decir: "Si dejas que mis bancos inviertan por tí no te tendré en cuenta tus plusvalías mientras estés dentro del corral.
Pero si no te pones en sus manos te cobraré en cada compraventa en inexorable ciclo anual para que me liquides las plusvalías y no puedas deducirte ni plusvalías, ni minusvalías ni tus costes al completo." Aunque en realidad estés construyendo tu propio fondo de inversiones o tu propia pensión.
Prepárense porque la "Banca" va a comprar Deuda Pública (26,000 millones de entrada) al Estado Español y harán como hicieron con la Deuda de la Generalitat: Cobraron su 6% de Comisión en la emisión, la colocaron em sus corralitos, se cobraron su comisión por vendérnosla y nos tuvimos que tragar la pérdida de valor de la misma cuando se convirtió en Bono Basura pasando en un instante de valer 100 a valer 15.

Se discrimina brutalmente al individuo y se le convierte en cordero fiscal del Ramadán Tributario. ¿Qué decencia y que "estado de derecho" tenemos? Ninguno. Nos roban con descaro total.

Por eso se va el sistema al carajo. Porque estar dentro es lo propio del ganado sometido y nadie se quiere ver en su real situación.

El precio de estas perversiones es la miseria colectiva y un destino totalitario cuyo lugar correcto es el basurero de nuestra historia.


Saludos cordiales.

[sudden and sharp]

[...] Un inversor normalito lo sabe y trata de cubrirse usando la prudencia. Una virtud que como otras virtudes es denostada y a veces perseguida.  Pero desde que los mercados se prostituyeron con las compras y ventas a crédito dejaron de ser mercados y se convirtieron en casinos. Algo que los inversores también saben perfectamente y huyen de ellos.

Luego vino otra trampa sobre el pequeño inversor independiente: La discriminación Fiscal.  Es decir: Si dejas que mis bancos inviertan por tí no te tendré en cuenta tus plusvalías. Pero si no te pones en sus manos te joderé en cada compravebnta en ciclo anual para que me liquides las plusvalías y no puedas deducirte ni plusvalías ni costes al completo. Aunque en realidad estés construyendo tu propio fondo de inversiones o tu propia pensión.
Se discrimina brutalmente al individuo y se le convierte en cordero fiscal de ramadán tributario.  ¿Qué decencia y que "estado de derecho" prevalece?
Ninguno.

A lo primero letras... o bonos. (En el secundario para lo último... desde tu casa.)

A lo segundo... No soy un experto pero diría que no se paga por traspasar de un fondo a otro; y no tienen que ser de gestoras de bancos, ni desde los bancos... Se paga al vender con plusvalías. No veo del todo mal que no se premie el "trading" diario, el metesaca... [ ] que eso sí que es especulativo.




Mis 2 cents. (De euro.)

[sudden and sharp]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-13/how-far-apart-are-uk-and-eu-in-brexit-talks-on-the-northern-ireland-protocol

How Far Apart Are the UK and EU on a Brexit Deal?

The UK and European Union are poised to enter the final stretch of negotiations over post-Brexit trading arrangements for Northern Ireland. After years of distrust and tension both sides are optimistic that a settlement is within reach.

Nevertheless, there are a host of important and tricky areas left to resolve before a durable solution is found.

Here are the outstanding issues, ranked in order of difficulty, starting with the easiest to settle and finishing with the hardest.

Most achievable

Customs: This week’s announcement that the EU has agreed to use the UK’s live database tracking goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland lays the foundation for an agreement on customs. The UK has proposed separating goods just going to Northern Ireland and those which will continue into the EU into “green” and “red” lanes, underpinned by a “trusted trader” program. That would significantly reduce checks on goods that stay within the UK. The EU has proposed an “express” lane, which would still require suppliers to complete some customs paperwork.

What now? The two sides take a different approach but aren’t worlds apart — if the EU is confident it can make real-time risk assessments on goods by using the database, a customs deal is seen as the next likely staging post in the talks.

Tariffs: EU chief negotiator Maros Sefcovic sounded optimistic over a hefty EU duty charged on some British steel sent to Northern Ireland last year. The region has a long tradition of shipbuilding — the Titanic was built in Belfast — and a deal could see British steel arriving in Northern Ireland exempted from tariffs.

What now? Willingness to agree means a deal on tariffs is seen as quickly achievable.

More difficult

State aid, taxation: The UK wants to be able to extend subsidy controls and tax breaks, including changes to value-added tax, to Northern Ireland. This would mean EU state aid and VAT rules would not apply in the region — with implications for EU member states who see this as potentially anti-competitive.

This gets to the heart of the problem with Northern Ireland after Brexit: how to regulate for the reality that this region sits within both the UK and the EU single markets. In the end, the UK may be forced to accept that the trade-off for Northern Ireland having access to the EU trading bloc means it follows EU rules.

What now? A UK compromise on state aid would limit the British ability to give financial support to the region, so an agreement will be trickier. Alternatively, a trust-based approach might see the EU accept guarantees that the UK won’t make substantial subsidies, coupled with carve-outs for VAT rules on certain products, like alcohol.

Hardest to achieve

Sanitary checks: Reaching a deal on checks for livestock and agri-foods will be far more difficult. The UK no longer follows EU regulations, so physical checks must be carried out at the Irish Sea border. This is particularly important to the EU, which wants to ensure no disease is passed into their single market.

What now? It will be challenging to satisfy the EU while reducing border checks enough to convince the UK there won’t be a significant disruption to trade. Some exemptions might be made, like enforcing fewer checks for retail goods being sold solely in Northern Ireland. A deal is unlikely unless safeguards are increased — the EU needs to be confident that if a crisis does occur, snapback mechanisms are in place.

Governance: The dispute over the role of the European Court of Justice is a political one for the UK. It wants to strip the court of its role in settling disputes over the protocol, replacing it with an independent arbitration panel. But that’s a (legal) red line for the EU. A compromise might involve a combination of an arbitration body with the ECJ still having oversight of EU law, but the EU might not want to go that far.

What now? Agreement would require compromise on both sides and it won’t be an easy sell to Northern Ireland unionists or Brexit-supporting MPs in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party.

Any other business?

Other outstanding issues range from pet passports to the electricity market. The status of Gibraltar — another long-running Brexit sticking-point — as well as a financial services agreement and the UK’s membership of the Horizon research program also remain unresolved.

Can we expect a deal — and when?

There remains a way to go, despite genuine progress this week. Sefcovic and UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly are due to meet on Monday, seeking to enter the so-called “tunnel” of closed-door negotiations.

While both sides would like to reach a deal — or at least an outline of one — before the 25th anniversary of Northern Ireland’s peace deal in April, there is a risk that significant progress will be made before talks stall on a more challenging issue like the role of the ECJ.

Even if they clinch a settlement, the Democratic Unionist Party may yet reject it. The UK’s main gripe with the protocol is that unionists in Northern Ireland don’t like it, and the region has been without a functioning government for nearly a year as a result. Sunak is also on shaky ground with some in his own party, though Conservatives are less likely to rebel if the DUP endorses any deal.

Lo más fácil sería incorporar también la posibilidad de retorno... a 30 años por ejemplo... y así se podría colaborar mejor en acuerditos adhoc temporales. (Digamos que a  30 años máximo.  )

[sudden and sharp]

[ Bullish...  ]

[puede ser]

¿Ira, negación, violencia?, hoy se transmuta en trastorno mental, unas pastillas y ya estás apartado de la sociedad... Como le ocurre al líder de esta banda británica excelsa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJNhIKeS228
(podéis escuchar sus dos primeros discos completos en youtube)

¿Pobreza?, transmutada en actitud hippie-punk, desde la mismísima Isla de Wight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9jeJk2UHQ

El artista como mártir de su época, cargando con los efectos de lo tóxico, del tener que ser un ser-otro; expresando con naturalidad el suicidio de una época:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4gQhL4kWVI

[sudden and sharp]

Ya puestos en ciscarnos en to...








My Way (La versión buena)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5LOiOcfAAk

[sudden and sharp]

Ya puestos en ciscarnos en to...








My Way (La versión buena)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5LOiOcfAAk

EDIT: Ésta tiene mucha gracia:

Wet Leg - Chaise Longue (Official Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9jeJk2UHQ

[Derby]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-trade-organization-sidelined-11673629991

Who Is Going to Police the New World Trading System?

As the World Trade Organization is increasingly sidelined, the future is going to look more like the past—and it won’t be a level playing field

The globalization boom that began in the 1990s didn’t happen by itself: It was lubricated by the biggest economies’ willingness to write, enforce and obey shared rules of engagement.

That consensus is now crumbling. The World Trade Organization, the embodiment of this rules-based order, has increasingly been sidelined as countries turn to export controls, subsidies and tariffs to promote domestic industries or kneecap adversaries.

Many blame this on the U.S., as first President Trump and now President Biden rejected WTO authority and enacted tariffs and subsidies that riled trading partners.

In reality, the WTO’s credibility began to erode much earlier with the rise of China, whose authoritarian, statist economy has proved incompatible with the trading system the market-based democracies built after World War II.

Mr. Biden has governed as a champion of the international order, yet on trade, he has stuck with many of the policies enacted by the avowedly nationalistic Mr. Trump. He has maintained Mr. Trump’s tariffs on China and blocked appointments to the WTO appellate body, which has the final say on enforcement decisions, leaving it unable to function.

Last month, in two separate decisions, WTO panels ruled that the Trump administration had violated its WTO obligations by imposing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, and requiring that products made in Hong Kong be labeled as made in China. The WTO allows a member to impose trade barriers in the interests of its national security, but the U.S. had not met the criteria, the panels said.

A spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai criticized the decision. The WTO, he said, had no right to even rule on the U.S. actions. The U.S., he noted, has for more than 70 years insisted that it, not the WTO, gets to decide what qualifies as national security.

Systemic tensions

This clash exemplifies the tensions chipping away at the world trading system. Under the WTO and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, members tacitly agreed not to invoke national security, says William Reinsch, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. That tacit agreement no longer exists.

If others follow U.S. precedent, “the whole system is useless: It invites everyone to make a national security claim every time.”

The European Union has also threatened to take the U.S. to the WTO because the law dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act only provides subsidies to electric vehicles assembled in North America. Beijing has filed a case over U.S. restrictions on exports of semiconductor technology to China.

Yet complaints about U.S. behavior is at best a partial diagnosis of what ails the world trading system. A more complete picture needs to address why the Americans have become so obstreperous.

The U.S. had originally pushed for the WTO’s binding dispute mechanism out of frustration that under its predecessor, GATT, enforcement decisions could be easily blocked by any one country.

The unintended consequence is that countries unhappy with U.S. trade laws, rather than negotiate, sue the U.S. at the WTO, and often win because WTO judges take an expansive view of their own authority to interpret and, critics say, make trade law.

As frustrating was the WTO’s inability to discipline China’s protectionist and discriminatory practices.



In market democracies, for example, the state deals with companies at arm’s length, and subsidies are transparent and rules-based. In China, there is no bright line between the state and the private sector. Subsidies are pervasive and opaque and thus difficult to police.

For example, for years only electric vehicles equipped with batteries made by Chinese companies qualified for Chinese government subsidies. But as Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations notes, because this discriminatory behavior wasn’t codified, a violation in trade laws was hard to prove—in contrast to the U.S., where subsidies are written into laws and regulations.

A WTO complaint typically requires evidence a company was harmed. But Western companies that complain about their treatment in China can expect the government to retaliate—for example through an antitrust or cybersecurity investigation—and thus they stay silent. China routinely punishes countries that cross it diplomatically by blocking imports or tourism, without making a formal connection. This makes it hard to bring a WTO complaint.

The net result is that today the WTO is unable to discipline either its largest or second largest member, leaving a deglobalizing world without an effective cop on the trade beat.

Where it leads

This doesn’t portend a return to the 1930s, when countries dramatically raised tariffs and retreated into autarky. The WTO still exists, and most members still abide by their commitments. Some have used alternative channels to adjudicate disputes while the appellate body remains defunct.

U.S. officials say their imposition of trade barriers on national-security grounds won’t precipitate a flood of frivolous copycat actions. Any country making such a claim accepts the right of affected trading partners to retaliate—and would thus think twice. “There’s a self-regulating nature to invoking national security,” one official says, noting that the U.S. faced retaliation for its steel and aluminum tariffs long before the WTO ruled.

Rather than a single set of rules imposed on fundamentally incompatible systems, such as China’s and the U.S.’s, the world will migrate toward a series of regional pacts. This lets countries pick partners and sectors where their values and interests happen to align, such as Singapore’s digital trade agreement with Australia. The Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework represents a la carte economic cooperation: Participating countries pick from a menu of fields in which to participate—tax, infrastructure, supply-chain resilience and trade.

Dispute settlement mechanisms will still matter. The U.S. and Canada have each won disputes before panels formed under the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, over dairy and solar products, respectively. On Wednesday, a USMCA panel sided with Mexico and Canada in finding the U.S. had applied too strict a definition of North American content to automobiles. A spokesman for Ms. Tai said, “We will engage Mexico and Canada on a possible resolution to the dispute.”

But the future will resemble the pre-WTO past in that many disputes will be resolved through negotiation rather than litigation. U.S. officials point to the resolution with the EU of a long-running fight over each other’s subsidies for commercial airliners, which includes a joint approach to dealing with China. Ms. Tai has suggested Europe respond to U.S. electric-vehicle subsidies by introducing its own. The implication: Rather than sue each other in pursuit of a world without subsidies, the U.S. and Europe should accept that China has made such a world unattainable.

One thing this won’t be is a level playing field. Just as hockey without referees favors the team with the largest players, trade without binding dispute settlement favors those countries best able to retaliate, or withstand retaliation—i.e., the U.S., China and the EU. Smaller countries must accept whatever these bigger countries offer.

“This is the U.S. going back to ‘Might makes right,’” says Jennifer Hillman, a trade expert at Georgetown University who has also served as a panelist in trade disputes, including at the WTO. “If you’re a large country with a significant ability to retaliate, it’s self-limiting. If you’re a small country, I’m not sure how much difference it makes to have the right to retaliate.”

[Asdrúbal el Bello]

Igual se nos ha ido el niño al vaciar la bañera, y to pa na.

CARTA DE UN DESESPERADO CATEDRÁTICO DE UNIVERSIDAD.

<<Imparto clase en la Universidad desde hace 25 años. La primera asignatura que impartí era Dirección Estratégica de Empresas: tenía 524 alumnos. Era imposible distinguir las caras de los que se sentaban atrás en aquellas gigantescas aulas. Eso sí, las aulas estaban llenas. Algunos alumnos se tenían que sentar en las escaleras, porque no cabían. En las horas de tutoría, los alumnos hacían cola en la puerta de mi despacho. Por mis clases han pasado directivos de grandes empresas.

Todo lo anterior ya es sólo un eco del pasado. Hoy me dedico a engañar más que a enseñar. Los grupos de hoy son de 50 alumnos, de los cuales raramente vienen a clase más de un 30%. Los que vienen, lo hacen con un teléfono móvil que utilizan sin ningún pudor durante las horas de clase. Las caras de los alumnos se esconden tras las pantallas. Es raro que alguien pregunte, por mucho que se les incite a hacerlo. Quince minutos antes de que acabe la clase ya están recogiendo sus cosas, deseosos de salir.

Cada vez me siento más como un profesor de primaria que como un catedrático de Universidad. A menudo tengo que callarme yo porque un rumor generalizado se extiende por el aula y me da vergüenza mandar callar a universitarios. He separado a gente para que no hablen entre ellos, he expulsado alumnos del aula y me he llegado a marchar de clase ante el más absoluto desinterés. Nada sirve.

Como respuesta a este panorama, y siguiendo las sucesivas y cambiantes normativas universitarias (cada una peor que la anterior), los profesores hemos tomado cartas en el asunto con las tres siguientes medidas de supervivencia: (1) el nivel de las asignaturas ha bajado: impartimos menos temas y de manera mucho más superficial. (2) Hacemos parciales para tratar de aprobar al mayor número de alumnos, pues un número de suspensos superior a lo que la universidad establece conlleva una sanción que influye en el presupuesto del departamento. (3) El nivel de los trabajos y presentaciones de los alumnos no pasaría, en su mayoría, los estándares del teatrillo de Navidad de Primaria. Pero eso, para nosotros, es más que suficiente para poner un cinco. De este modo cumplimos el contrato-programa, el departamento es feliz, la universidad es feliz, nuestros alumnos aprueban, creen que saben algo, son felices, y nosotros languidecemos ante la triste realidad.

Por eso, querido alumno/a, te digo que me dedico a engañarte. Vives en una mentira que nosotros edulcoramos. Aquí van algunas realidades que no te van a gustar: te faltan habilidades en estudios superiores. No sabes estar. Balbuceas, te encorvas, no fijas la mirada, metes las manos en los bolsillos. No tienes capacidad de expresión. Tu vocabulario es muy básico. Tu nivel de lengua extranjera es nulo. Vives anestesiado por las redes sociales. Y si tu expresión es limitada, tu escritura lo es más. Se nota que ya no hacen dictados en educación secundaria. Ah. Y cuando envías a tu madre para una revisión de exámenes, mi perplejidad no cabe en mi persona. Jamás hubieras superado esta asignatura hace 10 o 20 años. De tu clase, no más de diez personas seguirían admitidas en estos estudios. De hecho, hace muchos años que no recomiendo a ningún alumno para ninguna empresa.

No quiero terminar exponiendo un problema sin dar soluciones. Las hay. He aquí cuatro propuestas incómodas:

a-No somos todos iguales. Hay estudiantes con vocación y con interés eclipsados por la mediocridad imperante. Centrémonos en ellos. La universidad es para formar a las élites intelectuales. Antes de que me llaméis facha, os recordaré que esa frase es de don Gregorio Peces-Barba, que fue rector de la Universidad Carlos III, padre de la Constitución y socialista de verdad.

b-Devolvamos al profesorado universitario las competencias perdidas a la hora de diseñar planes de estudio, modelos de enseñanza y currículum.

c-Eliminemos cualquier rastro tecnológico en la enseñanza primaria (lo que incluye ordenadores portátiles). Las tecnologías de la información, a edades tan tempranas, sólo sirven para distraer. La plasticidad neuronal se desarrolla con lápiz y papel, no con la dictadura de los teclados.

d-Fomentemos la doble cultura de la competición y de la colaboración. El esfuerzo conlleva recompensa, a veces a largo plazo. Los mejores serán premiados y los peores se quedarán fuera de juego; y si quieren volver a entrar tendrán que esforzarse más, o bien centrarse en otro juego.

Los profesores estamos hartos de formarnos en técnicas docentes de pelajes exóticos para motivar al alumnado. Lo que está claro es que si tú, estudiante, no tienes interés, yo no puedo plantarlo en ti. Pero sí puedo hacerte creer que vales, aunque sepa que es mentira. Me he convertido en un experto en mentir porque el sistema me lo exige, y cumplo. Y rezo para que esto sólo me ocurra a mí, pero no ocurra en Medicina o en Ingeniería, sobre todo cuando cruce un puente o me lleven al quirófano.

En fin, querido estudiante, esto es lo que hay. Quizás seas la excepción a todo lo escrito. Ojalá sea así, pero los números me dicen que las probabilidades son inferiores al 10%. En todo caso, no busques la solución en el Estado, ni en los sindicatos, ni en los cantos de sirena de los populismos, ni en las redes sociales. La solución está en ti. Si tú cambias, el mundo cambia. Y si no quieres cambiar… no te preocupes: te seguiremos engañando, haciéndote creer que lo estás haciendo muy bien>>.

Firmado:
Daniel Arias Aranda.
Catedrático de la Universidad de Granada.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.eleconomista.es/vivienda-inmobiliario/noticias/12107857/01/23/El-esfuerzo-economico-para-compra-vivienda-cruza-la-linea-roja-en-cuatro-ciudades-.html

https://www.eleconomista.es/vivienda-inmobiliario/noticias/12106508/01/23/El-precio-de-la-vivienda-sube-mas-de-un-50-desde-el-minimo-de-la-crisis-en-seis-capitales.html

Saludos.