Los administradores de TransicionEstructural no se responsabilizan de las opiniones vertidas por los usuarios del foro. Cada usuario asume la responsabilidad de los comentarios publicados.
0 Usuarios y 7 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
MILEI, ESTAFADOR.—https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHuzRVgCh6ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs6pJBu7NVM¡No damos abasto con eventos supersueltadesamparistas en este histórico febrero de 2025!P. S.: No vamos nada desencaminados cuando decimos que los dos grandes monitores de la Suelta & Desamparo 2025 son Ucrania y las cripto.
[...]Un servidor escucha a los ganchos del timo y lo que ve son cruces ardiendo en la noche y musksaludos:
European countries clash over sending troops to UkrainePoland, Germany and Spain express reluctance before crisis meeting on response to Trump’s peace talks with RussiaEuropean countries clashed over sending troops to Ukraine as they held a crisis meeting intended to reach a consensus on how to respond to US President Donald Trump’s peace talks with Russia.As leaders convened in Paris for the emergency meeting on Monday afternoon, Germany, Poland and Spain signalled reluctance to dispatch peacekeeping forces to the war-torn country, hours after Britain offered to put “boots on the ground”.Monday’s meeting, which France hoped would also yield plans to help European countries boost defence spending, was hosted by President Emmanuel Macron and attended by six EU countries, the UK and officials from Nato and the EU.Macron and Trump spoke ahead of the Paris summit.Washington’s European allies are racing to respond to the US president’s shock announcement of talks with Russia, which are set to begin in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.The Kremlin has hailed the discussions in Riyadh, which will not include Ukraine, as a step to restoring full bilateral relations with the US and ending the war.But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Monday that Kyiv would not recognise the outcome of any negotiations from which it was excluded. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, later said “nobody” would impose decisions on Zelenskyy as the “elected leader of a sovereign nation”.According to three officials briefed on the preparations for the Paris meeting, France has proposed discussing a “reassurance force” that would be stationed behind, not on, a future ceasefire line in Ukraine.While UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he is “ready and willing . . . [to put] our own troops on the ground if necessary”, other countries are much more reluctant.German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who faces nationwide elections on Sunday, maintained his long-standing caution on troop deployments, saying the debate was premature.“The question now is how peace can be ensured without decisions being made over the heads of the Ukrainian people,” he said before the meeting.“Nobody is currently considering sending troops to Ukraine,” said José Manuel Albares, Spain’s foreign minister. “Peace is still very far away and for one reason only: Vladimir Putin.”He added that any discussion of troop deployments or peacekeepers would “have to consider for what mission, who will comprise it, under what flag, with what mandate”.Although Poland has significantly increased defence spending since the war began, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Warsaw was not prepared to send troops to Ukraine.“But we will support, also in terms of logistics and political support, countries that will possibly want to provide such guarantees in the future,” Tusk added.“If we, Europeans, fail to spend big on defence now, we will be forced to spend 10 times more if we don’t prevent a wider war,” he said.Monday’s meeting was set to discuss funding of increased European defence spending and military capabilities, potentially through joint borrowing or what France called other “innovative financing” methods.Macron has long called for the EU to engage in common borrowing to reduce its reliance on US troops and weaponry, although Germany and the Netherlands have opposed such a move.The dramatic shift in the US stance on Ukraine has forced European leaders’ positions to evolve rapidly.European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday that she would propose capitals allowing a temporary easing of the bloc’s rules on deficits for defence spending specifically, a plan that EU officials said had widespread support across the bloc.Speaking after the meeting, Scholz also endorsed the idea of an “escape clause” to EU deficit rules, but stopped short of supporting common borrowing.Starmer has also committed to setting out a “pathway” for UK defence spending to reach 2.5 per cent of GDP.Speaking to journalists before travelling to Paris, the British prime minister said: “This isn’t just about the front line in Ukraine. It’s the front line of Europe and of the United Kingdom. It’s about our national security and I think we need to do more.”
Revealed: Trump’s confidential plan to put Ukraine in a strangleholdPanic in Kyiv as US president demands higher share of GDP than Germany’s First World War reparationsDonald Trump’s demand for a $500bn (£400bn) “payback” from Ukraine goes far beyond US control over the country’s critical minerals. It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country.The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky’s office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. The document has caused consternation and panic in Kyiv.The Telegraph has obtained a draft of the pre-decisional contract, marked “Privileged & Confidential’ and dated Feb 7 2025. It states that the US and Ukraine should form a joint investment fund to ensure that “hostile parties to the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine”.The agreement covers the “economic value associated with resources of Ukraine”, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)”, leaving it unclear what else might be encompassed. “This agreement shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflict of laws principles,” it states.The US will take 50pc of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50pc of the financial value of “all new licences issued to third parties” for the future monetisation of resources. There will be “a lien on such revenues” in favour of the US. “That clause means ‘pay us first, and then feed your children’,” said one source close to the negotiations.It states that “for all future licences, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals”. Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine’s commodity and resource economy. The fund “shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions” of all future licences and projects. And so forth, in this vein. It seems to have been written by private lawyers, not the US departments of state or commerce.President Zelensky himself proposed the idea of giving the US a direct stake in Ukraine’s rare earth elements and critical minerals on a visit to Trump Tower in September, hoping to smooth the way for continued arms deliveries.Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald TrumpHe calculated that it would lead to US companies setting operations on the ground, creating a political tripwire that would deter Vladimir Putin from attacking again.Some mineral basins are near the front line in eastern Ukraine, or in Russian-occupied areas. He has played up the dangers of letting strategic reserves of titanium, tungsten, uranium, graphite and rare earths fall into Russian hands. “If we are talking about a deal, then let’s do a deal, we are only for it,” he said.He probably did not expect to be confronted with terms normally imposed on aggressor states defeated in war. They are worse than the financial penalties imposed on Germany and Japan after their defeat in 1945. Both countries were ultimately net recipients of funds from the victorious allies.A new VersaillesIf this draft were accepted, Trump’s demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty, later whittled down at the London Conference in 1921, and by the Dawes Plan in 1924. At the same time, he seems willing to let Russia off the hook entirely.Donald Trump told Fox News that Ukraine had “essentially agreed” to hand over $500bn. “They have tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earths, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things,” he said.He warned that Ukraine would be handed to Putin on a plate if it rejected the terms. “They may make a deal. They may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday. But I want this money back,” he said.Trump said the US had spent $300bn on the war so far, adding that it would be “stupid” to hand over any more. In fact the five packages agreed by Congress total $175bn, of which $70bn was spent in the US on weapons production. Some of it is in the form of humanitarian grants, but much of it is lend-lease money that must be repaid.Republican Senator Lindsey Graham suggested at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend that Trump’s demand was a clever ploy to bolster declining popular support for the Ukrainian cause. “He can go to the American people and say, ‘Ukraine is not a burden, it is a benefit,’” he said.Sen Graham told the Europeans to root hard for the idea because it locks Washington into defending a future settlement. “If we sign this minerals agreement, Putin is screwed, because Trump will defend the deal,” he said.Ukrainian officials had to tiptoe though this minefield at the Munich forum, trying to smile gamely and talking up hopes of a resource deal while at the same pleading that the current text breaches Ukrainian law and needs redrafting. Well, indeed.Talk of Ukraine’s resource wealth has become surreal. A figure of $26 trillion is being cast around for combined mineral reserves and hydrocarbons reserves. The sums are make-believe.Ukraine probably has the largest lithium basin in Europe. But lithium prices have crashed by 88pc since the bubble burst in 2022. Large reserves are being discovered all over the world. The McDermitt Caldera in Nevada is thought to be the biggest lithium deposit on the planet with 40m metric tonnes, alone enough to catapult the US ahead of China.The Thacker Pass project will be operational by next year. The value of lithium is in the processing and the downstream industries. Unprocessed rock deposits sitting in Ukraine are all but useless to the US.It is a similar story for rare earths. They are not rare. Mining companies in the US abandoned the business in the 1990s because profit margins were then too low. The US government was asleep at the wheel and let this happen, waking up to discover that China has acquired a strategic stranglehold over supplies of critical elements needed for hi-tech and advanced weapons. That problem is being resolved.Ukraine has cobalt but most EV batteries now use lithium ferrous phosphate and no longer need cobalt. Furthermore, sodium-ion and sulphur-based batteries will limit the future demand growth for lithium. So will recycling. One could go on. The mineral scarcity story is wildly exaggerated.As for Ukraine’s shale gas, a) some of the Yuzivska field lies under Putin control, and b) the western Carpathian reserves are in complex geology with high drilling costs, causing Chevron to pull out, just as it did in Poland. Ukraine has more potential as an exporter of electricity to Europe from renewables and nuclear expansion, but that is not what is on Donald Trump’s mind.The second violation of UkraineUkraine cannot possibly meet his $500bn demand in any meaningful timeframe, leaving aside the larger matter of whether it is honourable to treat a victim nation in this fashion after it has held the battle line for the liberal democracies at enormous sacrifice for three years. Who really has a debt to whom, may one ask?“My style of dealmaking is quite simple and straightforward,” says Trump in his book The Art of the Deal. “I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.”In genuine commerce the other side can usually walk away. Trump’s demand is iron-fist coercion by a neo-imperial power against a weaker nation with its back to the wall, and all for a commodity bonanza that exists chiefly in Trump’s head.“Often-times the best deal you make is the deal you don’t make,” said Trump, offering another of his pearls.Zelensky does not have that luxury. He has to pick between the military violation of Ukraine by Putin, and the economic violation of Ukraine by his own ally.
España construye el mayor número de viviendas tras la burbuja inmobiliaria pero no está claro que eso baje los preciosDavid Noriega / Yuly Jara16 de febrero de 2025 22:31 hActualizado el 17/02/2025 05:30 hCualquier análisis sobre las posibles soluciones a la crisis residencial acaba desembocando, en algún punto, en la necesidad de construir más viviendas. Pese al stock de 450.000 viviendas nuevas sin vender, las decenas de miles de pisos turísticos sin licencia o el fraude del alquiler temporal, hay un argumento en el que se pone el foco de forma recurrente: en los últimos 15 años se han creado el doble de hogares que de viviendas, provocando un déficit que el Banco de España estimaba en 600.000 casas entre 2022 y 2025.Ante esa supuesta carencia, el Ministerio de Vivienda celebraba un dato inédito desde 2018. El número de visados de obra nueva confirma una tendencia levemente ascendente, pero en 2024 superaba, tras un lustro, al de nuevos hogares creados. “Se ha roto la tendencia negativa”, indicaban desde el departamento de Isabel Rodríguez, que reconocía que “el siguiente paso es que se construyan más viviendas que nuevos hogares, una medida que, junto al impulso de la rehabilitación y la devolución al mercado habitacional de viviendas turísticas tiene que ayudar a solventar el mencionado déficit”.En concreto, a noviembre de 2024, se habían concedido 126.761 visados de obra nueva, que habilitan a iniciar las construcciones, frente a 111.548 hogares creados en el año completo. La carencia sigue vinculada, no obstante, a las certificaciones de fin de obra, unas 96.000. Hay otro dato relevante, el número de visados es el mayor en 15 años y supera ya al de 2009, el año siguiente al estallido de la burbuja inmobiliaria.“El match no se produce porque adecuemos la producción a la creación de hogares, sino porque, sorprendentemente, esta se sitúa en la mitad de la previsión”, estima la vicepresidenta de la Asociación de Promotores Constructores de España (APCE), Carolina Roca, que señala que se deberían estar construyendo y poniendo en el mercado entre 200.000 y 250.000 viviendas al año ante una tensión de demanda que “sigue siendo creciente”. El portal Idealista ha publicado este jueves un estudio sobre ventas exprés del que se desprende que el 12% de los inmuebles anunciados en la plataforma en el último trimestre de 2024 se vendieron en menos de una semana.Ante la caída en la creación de hogares, que ha pasado del entorno de los 280.000 en 2022 y 2023 a 212.000 en 2023 y unos 100.000 menos el año pasado, Roca se plantea si este indicador “se está acompasando a la producción” de viviendas. Según un informe del Consejo de la Juventud de España, al primer semestre de 2024 solo se había emancipado el 14,8% de la población menor de 30 años. Pero la crisis habitacional no es el único factor en un país en claro envejecimiento y en el que en los últimos seis años ha habido más muertes que nacimientos.La caída en la creación de hogares responde, principalmente, a las familias de una o dos personas. “Es un dato que rompe totalmente la serie”, considera la promotora.Pese al cambio de tendencia, que aún es poco pronunciado, los efectos sobre el mercado de la vivienda no empezarán a verse, al menos, hasta dentro de un par de años. “Hay que comparar los datos de inicio de obra con la creación de hogares dos años después”, explica Roca, que señala que en toda la serie histórica suele darse un decalaje de en torno al 15% de inmuebles frustrados.En el siguiente gráfico puede verse esta relación. Por ejemplo, en los primeros años de este siglo, con un boom de oferta descontrolado, se repartían visados a mansalva, llegando a superar los 800.000 en 2006. Esas licencias tuvieron su efecto en los años posteriores. De hecho, tras el estallido de la burbuja inmobiliaria se finalizaron muchas de esas construcciones, con hasta 600.000 viviendas terminadas en 2008, casi 400.000 en 2009 o más de 200.000 en 2010, los peores años de la Gran Recesión.El gráfico también muestra el decalaje. Por ejemplo, en 2021 y 2022 se visaron en torno a 108.000 proyectos cada año, pero en 2023 y en 2024 solo hubo 86.000 y 95.986 visados de fin de obra.Más allá de la construcción de vivienda, una de las principales preocupaciones es el precio. ¿Servirá la fórmula del ladrillo para facilitar el acceso? Desde el lobby del sector aseguran que sí, pero la historia reciente es testigo de cómo en la época dorada de la burbuja, cuando se ponían en el mercado entre 400.000 y 600.000 viviendas al año, los precios no pararon de crecer.“La situación de 2008 fue verdaderamente de burbuja financiero-inmobiliaria, que es radicalmente opuesta a la actual, con una crisis de oferta. Entonces los precios podían seguir creciendo porque todo el mundo tenía la financiación necesaria y podía comprar una vivienda sin ahorro. Empezamos a producir, producir y producir y esa producción se absorbía por encima de nuestra propia capacidad”, señala Roca, que considera que ahora el crédito está limitado y la crisis de oferta produce un efecto en cascada: “No hay vivienda pública; no se está produciendo vivienda protegida para las clases medias, que tenían cierta solvencia, ni vivienda libre, ni de lujo... Al final, la clase media-alta que podía acceder a la vivienda libre se tiene que ir a la protegida y esa clase media es expulsada al alquiler. Como es más solvente, el arrendador lo prefiere, así que acaba expulsando a todos”.Pese a un control mayor sobre el crédito por parte de las entidades bancarias, el Banco de España ha dado muestras de preocupación en este sentido. Principalmente, por las dudas sobre la independencia de las tasadoras, que son quienes valoran los precios a la hora de conceder una hipoteca, respecto a los bancos, sus clientes.Otras voces son más críticas con el modelo de oferta sin control. “Históricamente, todos los booms en los que se ha logrado generar más viviendas que hogares han ido de la mano de aumentos de precio”, señala el investigador Jaime Palomera. La explicación radica en la concepción de la vivienda como un activo financiero, pero también en las particularidades del propio ramo, que no responde a las leyes típicas del mercado. “El suelo donde se construye es un bien escaso e inmóvil, está en un sitio fijo y no puedes crear más, pero la actividad económica y la población crece, así que, a diferencia de otros bienes de mercado, aunque se deteriore, su precio crece sin que su propietario le aporte valor”, desarrolla.Y dentro de ese mercado con reglas imperfectas y escasa o nula regulación sobre el precio, entran otros actores, que adquieren viviendas como refugio de valor. De hecho, alrededor de la mitad de las casas que se compraron en los últimos años fueron sin hipoteca. “La cuestión es que el mercado está incorporando vivienda, sobre todo en las grandes ciudades y en el litoral, que son demasiado caras”, señala Palomera, que cita los datos de la Asociación de Promotores de Catalunya (APCE): comprar un piso en Barcelona cuesta, de media, casi 700.000 euros. “Lo que llamaríamos 'clase media' no puede permitirse una vivienda para vivir y esos precios recalientan las del entorno, también las de segunda mano”, explica.La fórmula para enfriar los precios lleva a la vivienda protegida o a precio asequible, aunque hay discrepancias en cuanto a las tasas. “Deberíamos volver a lo que históricamente se ha producido en este país: unas 250.000 viviendas al año, de las que 100.000 sean protegidas, porque responde muy bien a las necesidades de la clase media, más la vivienda pública, que se hace muy poca. Esto permitiría que todo el mundo encontrara su nicho y tuviéramos un mercado sostenible de vivienda, que hemos perdido completamente”, considera Roca.Palomera, por su parte, reclama una apuesta por la vivienda protegida con un nivel de ambición muy elevado: “Es la única manera de hacer vivienda asequible y contribuir a enfriar los precios”. Desde el Gobierno llevan tiempo insistiendo también en la idea de incrementar el parque público de vivienda, para que converja con los estándares europeos, todavía muy lejanos. Por el momento, según el Observatorio Social de la Vivienda, esta ha pasado del 2,5 al 3,3% sobre el total.