PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Primavera 2025

[patxarana]

Buenos días,

Me encuentro atareado en esas cuestiones prosaicas de declarar los ingresos anuales de los clientes personas físicas y no puedo hacerles todo el caso que me gustaría.
Sólo entraba para preguntar si habían comentado el tema de que una decisión administrativa (cambiar la calificación de un terreno de aprovechamiento rustico a urbanizable de uso industrial) pueda suponer, sobre el papel, que todo lo aguanta, un aumento de valor (que no ganancia, que debería hacerse efectiva para ser verdad) de 17.600 euros a cerca de un millón de euros. Como siempre, me creo de lo que leo la mitad, pero siempre me surgen el doble de preguntas.

https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2025-05-05/bono-psoe-suelo-pelotazo-millon-toledo-recalificacion-8-300-hipica_4121461/

Sin entrar en consideraciones morales y simplificado mucho.

Lo que ha ocurrido: José Bono compra la parcela por 17.000€ -> El ayuntamiento recalifica la parcela -> José Bono vende la parcela por 1.000.000€
Resultado:
• José Bono gana 983.000€
• El ayuntamiento gana 0€

Lo que podría haber ocurrido: José Bono compra la parcela por 17.000€ -> El ayuntamiento expropia la parcela a José Bono y le paga el justiprecio de 17.000€ -> El ayuntamiento recalifica la parcela -> El ayuntamiento vende la parcela por 1.000.000€
Resultado:
• José Bono gana 0€
• El ayuntamiento gana 983.000€

Resumiendo: el ayuntamiento de Toledo ha dejado de ganar 983.000€ por cómo ha gestionado las cosas.

[AbiertoPorDemolicion]

Buenos días,

Me encuentro atareado en esas cuestiones prosaicas de declarar los ingresos anuales de los clientes personas físicas y no puedo hacerles todo el caso que me gustaría.
Sólo entraba para preguntar si habían comentado el tema de que una decisión administrativa (cambiar la calificación de un terreno de aprovechamiento rustico a urbanizable de uso industrial) pueda suponer, sobre el papel, que todo lo aguanta, un aumento de valor (que no ganancia, que debería hacerse efectiva para ser verdad) de 17.600 euros a cerca de un millón de euros. Como siempre, me creo de lo que leo la mitad, pero siempre me surgen el doble de preguntas.

https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2025-05-05/bono-psoe-suelo-pelotazo-millon-toledo-recalificacion-8-300-hipica_4121461/

Yo por norma no me creo ni la mitad de la mitad, y ya me estoy creyendo mucho, de lo que dice la prensa pisitófila. Ellos no están para decir "la verdad", cualquier cosa que sea "la Verdad". Ellos y sus lectores la verdad y la mentira se la pasan por el forro de ahí abajo. Las mayorías pisitófilas no quieren la prensa para que les digan la verdad. La prensa es para hacer demostraciones de su El Poder, para enviar avisos a navegantes, para enseñar los dientes, para dar noticias triunfalistas y como indicador de que el pacto social sigue vigente.

Posiblemente la noticia que dan de Bono sea mentira, o verdad, o medias verdades o medias mentiras. Pero da igual. Lo que importa es esto: "Bono da un pelotazo de 1 millón de € en Toledo con la recalificación de 8.300 m² de su hípica". Aquí lo importante es la palabra pelotazo, que es música celestial para los capitalistitas pisitófilos. Esa es la razón del titular. Ese es el núcleo del pacto social.

Se podría meter en la cárcel a Bono y a muchos como ellos mañana mismo, y sin modificar el código penal. Solo con la legislación vigente. Pero no lo van a hacer porque es un contrasentido. Bono solo está aplicando el pacto social que suscribió con sus votantes. Demuestra que los pelotazos inmobiliarios son posibles, y no pasa nada. Solo tienen que aguantar la posición y esperar su oportunidad.

Lo de meter en la cárcel a Rodrigo Rato fue una demostración de El Poder de las mayorías electorales, en un momento en que el capitalismopopular se estaba tambaleando y estaban empezando a dudar de sus mafias político-mediáticas que mantuvieran el pacto social y la cotización de sus pisitos. Aviso a navegantes. Le tocó a Rato como le podía haber tocado a cualquier otro. Pueden meter en la cárcel a quién ellos quieran y en cualquier momento para dar ejemplo y dejar claro quién manda en el contrato social. Desde entonces, el precio de la vivienda no ha parado de subir.

Mientras El Pisito vaya pa'rriba, no van a meter en la cárcel a Bono. Lo veremos cuando llegue el -60% que predicen por aquí. Ese día, será el Dies Irae, y la pisitoflía saldrá a quemar las calles, y Bono no será más que un pelele en sus manos, como el de la Plaza Loreto del 28 de Abril.

[sudden and sharp]

No soy yo mucho de videos... --salvo los musicales, claro--; pero ya que habéis abierto la veda:


You think the Japanese Carry Trade amps up hedge fund margin call risk, time to check back in with the Evergrande/real estate situation in China...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1kga28t/comment/mqxnxza/
If you are OG ape and watched the Evergrande situation unfold at the edge of your seat with hopes of margin calls going out to hedge found that were also short Gamestop...well guess what. Despite the silence on the situation in China in the MSM, it's not over by any means! This is a decent video to bring you up to speed on what's going on with Evergrande/real estate in China.

[>]YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNKRplIFJmc

TL;DR:

First half is explaining China's economy and the peoples investment of property as an integral part of citizens retirement goals and a recap of Evergrande and their house of cards.

They talk about how investors of the empty houses stop paying mortgages to fight back, from 100 groups in 2024 to 300 as of April 2025. Banks in trouble making the same investments.

Banks started limiting withdrawals, then some rural banks were absorbed to prevent potential bank runs and reassure investors.

Other industries being effected due to less spending, youth employment all time high.

I guess the update is that China is putting up a strong front but are in similiar situation as US in 2008 crisis.

--------
Y para variar... no compra milagros orientales.

[Derby]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99p2mlyep5o

Four things you need to know about UK-India trade deal


Getty Images

The UK and India have agreed a trade deal to make it cheaper and easier to buy and sell goods and services to one another.

The hope is that the deal will benefit the economies of both countries.

The British government said the deal was the "biggest and most economically significant" trade agreement the UK had signed since leaving the European Union in 2020.

Here's a quick guide to what's been agreed and what it could mean for you.

What has been agreed?

The UK has lowered taxes on goods imported from India including:

*clothing and footwear
*food products including frozen prawns
*jewellery and gems
*some cars

India has cut taxes on goods imported from the UK including:

*cosmetics
*scotch whisky, gin and soft drinks
*higher-value cars
*food including lamb, salmon, chocolate and biscuits
*medical devices
*aerospace
*electrical machinery

The deal will also allow British firms to compete for more services contracts in India.

What will be the impact on people in the UK and India?

The trade deal won't come into force for up to a year, so don't expect to notice any immediate changes.

Over time though, the UK government says lowering tariffs on the likes of clothing, jewellery, and frozen prawns "could" lead to cheaper prices and more choice.

This deal could also be a big win for UK businesses which manufacture the goods which have seen tariffs slashed, such as car makers and whisky distillers.

For example, tariffs on whisky and gin being imported to India from the UK will be halved from 150% to 75% before reducing to 40% by the 10th year of the deal. Car tariffs will fall from more than 100% to 10%.

That will provide a boost to those two industries, which look set to be hit hard by US tariffs, as it will mean Indian companies wanting to import those products will pay less import charges than before.

If businesses end up exporting more goods to India and make higher profits, this could lead to them spending more on hiring staff, investing and also paying more tax.

In India, consumers could see much more choice among the goods which have been included under the deal. Clothing manufacturing businesses and jewellers will also be able to access the UK market which will boost their margins.

How important is this for the UK and India?

This deal has been a long time in the making, with on-off negotiations going on for some three years.

However it appears US President Donald Trump's introduction of tariffs on goods entering America has prompted other world leaders to consider striking free-trade deals with one another.

The UK's deal with India is its third biggest after its agreements with Australia and Japan. For context, the UK has signed trade deals and agreements in principle with about 70 countries and one with the EU.

The EU is the biggest trade partner for both the UK and India. Therefore, a free trade agreement between India and the EU would be more significant than the one with the UK. Both India and the EU have said they aim to finalise this by the end of 2025.



Last year trade between the UK and India totalled £42bn. The UK government has said this deal would boost that trade by an additional £25.5bn a year by 2040.

It is said over time it will boost the UK economy by £4.8bn. This is a tiny proportion of the UK economy which was worth £2,851bn last year.

However, India is also forecast to become the world's third-largest economy in a few years. It is also home to 1.45bn people - about 20 times the population of the UK -which is a lot of potential customers.

The UK is also a high priority trading partner for India, which has an ambitious target to grow exports by $1tn (£750bn) by 2030.

What does this mean for visas?

One of the reasons the UK India free trade deal has taken so long to reach is that India had made big demands about visas for Indian professionals and students to work and study abroad.

The British government said this deal does not include any change in immigration policy, including towards Indian students studying in the UK.

But it does includes a three-year exemption on the social security paid by Indian employees working in the UK, on short-term visas.

This agreement, known as the Double Contribution Convention, designed to ensure social security contributions are not made in more than one country, was one of the elements India had pushed for during negotiations.

The UK's Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the deal would make it easier for people with certain skills to work in the UK temporarily.

"It opens up a small number of visas from an existing route for chefs and musicians and yoga teachers, very, very small, about 1,800."

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/49e38ee8-f37e-47da-8ee4-1631175d2224

The old global economic order is dead Martin Wolf

China and others must think afresh as the US steps away from its role as balancer of last resort


© James Ferguson

How should outsiders want the trade war between the US and China to end? They should want both to lose.

True, Donald Trump’s approach is far worse than intellectually incoherent: it is lethal for any co-operative global order. Some people think a collapse of such “globalism” is even desirable. In my view, it is foolish to imagine that a world run by predatory “great powers” would be superior to the one we have. Yet, while Trump’s protectionism has to lose, Chinese mercantilism must not win, since it, too, creates substantial global difficulties.



To understand the problems the world economy faces it helps to start from the topic of “global imbalances”, which was much discussed in the run-up to the global and Eurozone financial crises of 2007-2015. In the years since, these imbalances have grown smaller but the overall picture has not changed. As the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook notes: China and European creditor nations (notably Germany) have run persistent surpluses, while the US has run offsetting deficits. As a result, the US net international investment position was minus 24 per cent of global output in 2024. Since the US runs trade and current account deficits and has a comparative advantage in services, it also runs large deficits in manufacturing.

So what, a passionate free-marketeer would ask? Indeed, even a not-quite-so-passionate free marketeer might note, with good reason, that the US has been fortunate to live beyond its means for decades. That need not be a problem: nobody, after all, will be able to force the US to pay its liabilities back. It also has ways, both elegant and not so elegant, to default. Inflation, depreciation, financial repression and mass corporate bankruptcies all come to mind.



Yet, one can see at least three large holes in this rather complacent view of large and persistent global imbalances. The first is that they have become politically noxious — so noxious, indeed, that they helped get Trump elected president, twice. The second is that, on the surplus side of the ledger lie negative-sum interventions designed to shift the global balance of economic power. While international relations is not only about economic power, the latter is certainly a crucial part of it.

The third is that the counterpart of external deficits tends to be unsustainable domestic borrowing. Combined with financial fragility, the latter can lead to huge financial crises, as it did between 2007 and 2015. Sectoral savings and investment balances are revealing indicators of this last challenge. Foreigners have been running a substantial savings surplus with the US for decades. US businesses have also been in balance or surplus since the early 2000s, while US households have been in surplus since 2008. Since these sectoral balances have to add to zero, the domestic counterpart of US current account deficits has been chronic fiscal deficits.



If real interest rates had been high, fiscal deficits might have been driving the chronic external deficits. But the opposite has been true: real interest rates have been either low or very low. The Keynesian hypothesis looks right: the inflow of net foreign savings, shown in capital account surpluses (and current account deficits) made big fiscal deficits necessary, because domestic demand in the US would otherwise have been chronically inadequate.

China is not the only player on the other side of the global ledger. But it is the most important. Michael Pettis is, in my view, correct that the world economy cannot easily accommodate a huge economy in which household consumption is 39 per cent of GDP and savings (and so investment) correspondingly huge. What is also clear is that the latter has also helped drive what the Rhodium Group judges a successful Made in China 2025 policy. Inevitably, the existing industrial powers are frightened of this Chinese-made juggernaut.



This brings us back to last week’s question: who will win the trade war between the US and China? I argued that China would do so, partly because the US has made itself so untrustworthy and partly because China has the option of expanding domestic demand and so offsetting lost US demand. Matthew Klein responds, in his excellent Substack The Overshoot, that China has long had this option but has failed to use it. My answer is that China must now do so and thus will indeed choose to expand demand rather than accept a huge domestic slump. We shall see.



The outcome of the US-China trade war and the possible evolution of Trump’s tariffs are the immediate questions. But the broader issues considered must not be ignored. Trade policy should not be judged in isolation. As those who founded the postwar trading system, notably Keynes himself, knew, its success also depends on global macroeconomic adjustment and so on how the international monetary system works.

In the first act of the postwar period, the US ran huge current account surpluses, but recycled them into lending. In the second act, up to 1971, the US surpluses eroded. This led to the end of the dollar peg and generalised floating cum inflation targeting, at least among high-income countries. That system worked well enough before China’s rapid rise. With that, the era during which the US could act as borrower and spender of last resort, tested in the 1980s by Japan and Germany, became politically and economically unworkable.



Trump’s unpredictability and focus for bilateral deals are indeed foolish. But the old US-led economic order is now unsustainable. The US will no longer serve as balancer of last resort. The world — especially China and Europe — has to think afresh.

[Derby]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-debt-unsustainable-path-admits-173826864.html

US debt on ‘unsustainable’ path, admits Scott Bessent


US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent has admitted that American government debt is on an ‘unsustainable’ path - Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent has warned that America’s government debt is on an “unsustainable” path.

Donald Trump’s finance chief admitted that his department’s borrowing limit is on a “warning track”, as he promised to give guidance over when the US government would run out of money.

Despite nearing its debt ceiling, he said that the US government would never default on its debts, which currently stand at $36.2 trillion (£27.1 trillion).

The debt ceiling is the legal limit that the US Congress permits the government to borrow.

Mr Bessent told a House of Representatives committee: “We do not have a revenue problem: we have a spending problem. We have to bring this spending under control.”

[Derby]

https://www.baha.com/Trump-We-dont-have-to-sign-trade-deals/news/details/64051823

Trump: We don't have to sign trade deals


EPA-EFE/WILL OLIVER

US President Donald Trump urged the press on Tuesday to stop asking how many deals the country has signed as "we don't have to sign trade deals," while noting that the US is "losing nothing" by not trading with China.

"Think of us as a super luxury store. We don't have to sign a deal. They have to sign deals with us," he says of other nations. "They want a piece of our market. We don't want a piece of their market ... We'll put down some numbers for countries to pay for the privilege to shop here," Trump added.

Yesterday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent revealed that 17 countries, excluding China, had put forward "very good trade proposals."

[mpt]

.....
Lo que ha ocurrido:
• José Bono gana 983.000€


Lo que podría haber ocurrido:
• El ayuntamiento gana 983.000€

Resumiendo:

en ambos casos el ladrillo final cargara con un suplemento de 1.000 €/m2 de precio


el recochineo: cuando la administración publica es la propietaria de un suelo que le salio gratis y lo subasta