Autor Tema: PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Primavera 2025 (Leído 356223 veces)

Derby · « **Respuesta #2700 en:** **Hoy** a las 10:04:45 »

Usura pura y dura. Y debo incluir a los pequeños propietarios sin escrúpulos que, encontrando validación en los Bernardos de este mundo, se dedican a exprimir a los inquilinos.

https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2025/05/21/financial-landlords-driving-up-rent-prices-in-toronto-faster-than-other-types-of-landlords-study/

Citar

‘Financial landlords’ driving up rent prices in Toronto faster than other types of landlords: study

Condominiums are seen under construction in front of the skyline in Toronto, Ont., on Tuesday October 31, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Mark Blinch (Mark Blinch/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

A group known as “financial landlords” are driving up the cost of rental housing in the city, worsening affordability, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Waterloo.

Financial firms, including private equity, asset managers, and real estate investment trusts (REITs), have been snapping up rental housing stock in Toronto for decades and according to the study, these groups charge monthly rents that are 44 per cent higher than the average neighbourhood price in Canada’s largest city. This represents about $670 more on average per month, according to the researchers.

“Most people can’t afford the housing they are living in, and these firms are in part responsible for pushing that change,” Martine August, one of the authors of the study and professor of planning at the University of Waterloo’s Faculty of Environment, said in a news release.

“They are buying up buildings and turning them into investment products, raising the rents and making communities less affordable for people.”

The study notes that the premium being charged by financial landlords is “much higher” than other landlord types, which include “chain” and “chain managed” landlords, landlords who own multiple properties, single owners, and non-profits.

According to the study, “chain” and “chain managed” landlords charge about 30 per cent more than average neighbourhood rents, while owners of multiple properties charge a premium of about 15 per cent. Single owners charge a premium of 22 per cent and non-profits actually charge about one per cent less than average rents.

Financial landlords raised rents faster than any other landlord type and increased rents “more sharply” in areas predominantly housing low-income and racialized people, according to the study.

The study, which the authors say is the first of its kind, involved researchers developing a new dataset from “a range of sources” to evaluate rents in Toronto by property, landlord, and landlord type.

“Until now, no one had been able to prove that housing financialization was driving up rents,” a news release accompanying the study read.

“Financial firms are leading the industry in raising rents and worsening housing affordability. This matters because they continue to dominate in apartment ownership, acquiring almost all suites sold in Toronto in recent years. Our findings suggest that the more they own, the worse affordability will get.”

The researchers note that their findings back up recommendations from community advocates who want to “rein in financial firms.”

“The government has goals to improve housing affordability, but their programs give funding to organizations who eviscerate housing affordability,” August said.

“We don’t think that they should be accessing support from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or Canada’s National Housing Strategy.”

asustadísimos · « **Respuesta #2701 en:** **Hoy** a las 11:11:30 »

[El popularcapitalismo está destruyendo el capitalismo, ja, ja, ja.]

Mad Men · « **Respuesta #2702 en:** **Hoy** a las 11:12:16 »

Tenemos una entrada neta de unas 700.000 personas y además un aumento de los pisos turísticos . Es un caldo de cultivo genial para los ladrilleros de difícil solución salvo políticas activas contra la especulación.

Saludos

sudden and sharp · « **Respuesta #2703 en:** **Hoy** a las 14:07:10 »

Cita de: anon-foundterminal in Reddit

Gamestop 0% Bonds went to almost 2 billion today.

As fo today the bonds Gamestop issued with a 0% interest (unheard of) are now trading at 132 % of their value.

So someone is willing to pay 198000000, yes almost 2 Billion (im sure by Monday we will reach and surpass that). To have the option to get shares of Gamestop or in a worag case scenario grt your money back by 2030 with a whopping 0% interest.

In my personal opinion, this proves what has been said all along, there is short hidden, synthetic, rehypothecated, whatever you wanna call it , bc no sane investor would take a deal lime this unless they cant buy shares in the open market .

Im curious as to what yall think about this?

As usual heres some rockets for extra hype.

YOLO

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1ktttrv/gamestop_0_bonds_went_to_almost_2_billion_today/

conejo · « **Respuesta #2704 en:** **Hoy** a las 17:18:43 »

Capitalismo Ficción.—

La frase “El Capitalismo Ficción ha derrotado al Capitalismo Formal” encierra una crítica potente y resume la evolución del sistema capitalista en las últimas décadas.

1 - Significado general

"Capitalismo Formal": Representa el capitalismo tradicional, aquel basado en la producción material, el intercambio de bienes y servicios reales, la lógica del trabajo, la competencia, la empresa productiva, el riesgo invertido y las leyes del mercado más o menos reguladas.

"Capitalismo Ficción": Se refiere a un capitalismo dominado por activos financieros ficticios, especulación, deuda inflada, burbujas inmobiliarias y bursátiles, derivados financieros sin respaldo en la economía real, marketing vacío, promesas tecnológicas sin rentabilidad concreta, y narrativas más cercanas a la fe que a los fundamentos contables.

2 - Dimensiones del conflicto

Económica: La acumulación de capital ya no pasa por la producción de valor real (trabajo), sino por operaciones especulativas, algoritmos, deuda soberana, o promesas futuras. Lo ficticio genera más rentabilidad (en apariencia) que lo tangible.

Política: Los Estados terminan protegiendo más los mercados financieros que los tejidos productivos, priorizando el rescate bancario antes que el empleo o el acceso a la vivienda.

Cultural/Simbólica: La ficción domina la percepción: las marcas valen más que la utilidad, los unicornios tech valen miles de millones sin beneficios reales, y el éxito se mide en capital narrativo más que en eficiencia productiva.

3 - Implicaciones

Desconexión entre economía financiera y economía real: el valor se infla sin respaldo, mientras los salarios se estancan y los precios (como el de la vivienda) se disparan.

Inestabilidad estructural: el sistema se vuelve más frágil, sostenido por confianza y liquidez artificial, no por productividad o innovación real.

Crisis de legitimidad: sectores populares y clases medias ven cómo el sistema premia lo irreal, mientras lo formal (trabajo, esfuerzo, ahorro) pierde peso y sentido.

asustadísimos · « **Respuesta #2705 en:** **Hoy** a las 17:41:35 »

[«Capitalismo Ficción», ¡órale!]

asustadísimos · « **Respuesta #2706 en:** **Hoy** a las 17:43:02 »

[«Capital narrativo», ¡órale!]

asustadísimos · « **Respuesta #2707 en:** **Hoy** a las 18:07:45 »

[En 'Das Kapital', Marx cita a W. Leatham, banquero de Yorkshire ('Letters on the Currency. 2° ed., Londres, 1840, p. 43-44): «Es imposible decir qué parte de ella [emisión de activos financieros —letras de cambio—] procede de negocios reales, por ejemplo, de compraventas efectivas, y qué parte responde a causas ficticias ('fictitious'), que se descuentan simplemente para recoger otras que se hallan en circulación antes de su vencimiento, creando así capital ficticio con la emisión de simples medios de circulación imaginarios». Estamos hablando de hace ¡¡¡2 siglos!!! Todo precio o cotización inflamado da lugar a capital de ficción, imaginario, fantasmagórico, que necesita de una narrativa engañosa que lo sustente. Lo que hace dos siglos era excepción, el popularcapitalismo ochentero lo ha convertido en regla. Y, en el s. XXI, las cripto le han dado vida autónoma.]

Derby · « **Respuesta #2708 en:** **Hoy** a las 18:45:10 »

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-24/crypto-is-infiltrating-the-dollar-s-hegemony-says-ken-rogoff

Citar

Ken Rogoff on How Crypto Is Cutting Into the Dollar’s Hegemony

Kenneth RogoffPhotographer: Hollie Adams/Bloomberg

From the International Monetary Fund to the Federal Reserve, Kenneth Rogoff has spent years inside the institutions that helped shape the dollar-led global economic order.

Now, he warns that the dollar’s dominance can no longer be taken for granted.

In his new book, Our Dollar, Your Problem, the Harvard economist argues that the rise of China, geopolitical tensions and the growing influence of cryptocurrencies are chipping away at the greenback’s global standing.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Rogoff spoke about why digital currencies, once dismissed as a fad, are here to stay.

The conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: Why did you include a chapter on cryptocurrencies?

A: We’re thinking about the future, not just the past. So the book is a sweeping history of the rise of the dollar post-World War II, including how it managed to reach such a high level and how its competitors fell by the wayside. But it’s not simply that the dollar became first, but became more dominant than any other currency has ever been. And I see it as in decline — it’s fraying at the edges where, of course, the renminbi is breaking free of the dollar, the euro is going to have a larger footprint — that’s been going on for a decade.

But there’s also crypto, because one of the dollar’s main markets is the world underground economy. And there, the government does not control things.

One of the first questions many people ask is can crypto replace dollars? Crypto can’t replace the dollar. But that’s in the legal economy where the government has a lot of leverage. But in the underground economy, by definition, it has much less leverage.

Q: What is the underground economy?

A: It depends on the country. The lion’s share is tax evasion. Tax evasion is massive all over the world. The average in the advanced economies is between 15-20%. The United States is one of the lowest — lower than 15%. But in most advanced economies, particularly in Europe, it’s much higher. And in developing economies, it’s a third of GDP. There’s sort of a gray area between what’s illegal and what’s tax evasion, sometimes they overlap. But a lot of it is what some people might call the gray market, the shadow economy. You don’t pay taxes on your nanny, people sometimes pay their painter in cash, their trainer in cash. There are people who pay for apartments in cash. Of course, there’s also arms dealing, human trafficking, drugs, etc. But illegal activity’s very important, but it’s quantitatively much smaller than tax evasion.

Q: You argue in your book that Bitcoin has already cut into the dollar’s dominance.

A: Yes, although crypto has not made significant inroads into the legal economy, it is increasingly used in the global underground economy – consisting of criminal activity but mainly tax and regulatory evasion – where cash, especially US dollars, had been king. The notion that there is no ‘fundamental value proposition’ in transactions use is just wrong. There are also many countries using crypto to evade US financial sanctions.

Q: What are the implications of this?

A: The underground global economy is perhaps 20% of global GDP — per my own research and per a World Bank literature survey. This is a big market where the dollar has been particularly dominant.

Q: How does crypto cutting into the dollar’s dominance raise interest rates for all of us?

A: A lower demand for dollars in the global underground economy raises US interest rates, though it is only one of many factors today pushing up rates. The United States’ “exorbitant privilege” — thanks to being by far the most important reserve currency – affects all our interest rates, not just the Treasury bill rate, including mortgages, car loans, student loans, etc.

Q: And the second implication is national security?

A: In general, a loss of market share of the dollar makes it more difficult for US authorities to monitor financial flows for information that helps preserve national security.

Dollar dominance also allows us to impose sanctions. To the extent there is simply a substitution of crypto for paper dollars that were already nearly impossible to trace, there is no new issue. To the extent crypto allows new ways to cloak transactions that had previously gone through normal financial channels, the national security implications of the information loss are much more significant. This challenge is all the more difficult for US regulators to reign in, given that large parts of the rest of the world resent what they see as excessive US control over the financial system, one of the main reasons that we are likely to see continuing diversification away from dollar markets toward other transactions vehicles, something Our Dollar, Your Problem discusses at length.

Q: And will crypto’s dominance continue to grow?

A: Absolutely. Crypto’s going to continue taking over the global underground economy on transactions.

There are people who think that crypto is going to go to the moon, but there plenty of people — Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, Jamie Dimon, Warren Buffett — who said pretty recently that they think crypto is just a scam. In the crypto chapter, I explain why that’s completely wrong. Because if the underground economy is 20% of global GDP that makes it — depending on the value of the dollar — a $20-to-$25 trillion economy. And if you’re providing the means of exchange, that’s a value proposition. Crypto has value. It’s used for transactions. There’s a big piece of the economy, which even if crypto’s heavily regulated, the government is going to have difficulty controlling. So it’s not worthless. There’s a lot at stake there.

Manu Oquendo · « **Respuesta #2709 en:** **Hoy** a las 18:51:43 »

El problema básico del pensamiento zurdo (Nota 1) es que ha faltado a clase en momentos clave del curso. Justo cuando se trataban las cuestiones relacionadas con oferta y demanda.

Uno de los efectos cumulativos de dichas pellas es el desmadre interesado de los alquileres. Digo interesado porque permite excitar al personal y derivar las culpas a los más odiados: los grandes tenedores. Calentología pura engañando al personal. Pero funciona electoralmente que es de lo que se trata.

Digo los grandes tenedores porque el pequeño propietario sabe por experiencia que vale mucho más la pena seleccionar al inquilino solvente y buen pagador, rebajándole el alquiler --lo habitual es un 7 o un 10%-- que "maximizar la renta mensual".

Esta actividad, como casi todos los negocios, se rige por la tasa de retorno de los flujos de caja y no por el nivel del alquiler mensual (McKinsey, 1975) Cálculo del IRR frecuente es todo lo que hace falta para saber si se gestiona bien o no.

Si le sumamos el desconocimiento de nuestra historia y la ley de Stafford Beer: Los objetivos del diseñador de un sistema se deducen de sus resultados nos encontramos con el hecho de que entre 1961 y 1975, los gobiernos de Franco construyeron 4.600.000 viviendas sociales. Sin IRPF ni IVA. Ojo.
Por entonces España tenía 700.000 empleados públicos y hoy tiene 3.5 millones más las "sobrinas" y "hermanos". El doble que Alemania.

Desde que murió Franco las cosas van como van en la vivienda social y en otras cuestiones. ¿Por qué?

La realidad tristísima es que gobiernan golfos que hacían pellas y que son capaces de producir apagones totales porque les da todo igual.
Por eso regularizan 500.000 más 400.000 cuando el ritmo de construcción no pasa de 100.000 viviendas nuevas al año.
Cuando gobiernan los peores de clase pasa lo que pasa.
Saludos

Nota 1 Pensamiento zurdo es la zona mental bajo Von der Leyen. El sumatorio Pepero-Sociata que desgobierna la UE.

Nota 2. La subida de aranceles del 30 % a China y el posible 50% a la UE es debido al IVA (a las importaciones de un 20% en media) el IVA sobre las importaciones actúa de hecho como un arancel pero la UE se hace la tonta.
Por eso nos llaman "europillos"