Autor Tema: PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Veranito 2025 (Leído 229339 veces)

sudden and sharp · « **Respuesta #2025 en:** **Hoy** a las 16:17:20 »

Estáis tardando.

Pero es mejor quejarse, supongo.

CHOSEN · « **Respuesta #2026 en:** **Hoy** a las 18:09:43 »

La crítica a Airbnb tiene mucho en común con las estupideces que decían los sindicatos de las ETT.
Hasta que el tiempo puso a cada cual en su sitio: Las ETT como un avance técnico que distribuye y aprovecha el trabajo infinitesimal que no podía ser empresarialmente ejecutado, beneficiando especialmente a los mas necesitados (jovenes, baja cualificacion, etc), y los sindicatos... pues al borde de la desaparición, siendo una de las instituciones más denostadas por la juventud (marisqueros, langostos, etc).
Pueden estar contentos. Es su obra.
El mecanismo de aprovechamiento "infinitesimal" de los "activos" es muy similar, no existiendo otra forma de aprovechar todo ese inmenso capital(ito) que por menudeo.
No, no se puede crear un puesto de trabajo fijo indefinido donde no hay horas anuales para ello.
No, no se puede poner un hotel donde no hay pernoctaciones anuales para hacerlo rentable.
Y sin embargo esos huecos deben ser cubiertos de alguna forma, porque existe demanda.
Resulta curioso que las criticas al turismo vengan por gente de clase media que se va de vacaciones. Gente que por supuesto ni tiene una empresa, ni piensa emprender. Pero quiere arreglar el mundo. A la fuerza.
El perfil de siempre, vamos.

Hay que poner a generar y a pagar impuestos a todas esas viviendas.
El desamparo no es suficiente.
Es Estado tiene que actuar.

Derby · « **Respuesta #2027 en:** **Hoy** a las 18:48:04 »

https://www.ft.com/content/067cd458-0029-4f32-b6d9-f82716625654

Citar

Housing is where the buck stops

Over the next few years, it will be the most politicised business sector in America

© Matt Kenyon

In the years following the 2008 market collapse and ensuing recession, there was no doubt which industry was the most politicised — banking. Since then, private equity has been more in the spotlight, on account of its profits and predation. But if I were to pick a single business that will be at the nexus of economic and political controversy in the coming years, I’d say it would be the housing industry.

Housing is inherently political because it represents both a financial asset and a basic human need: shelter. It’s also a key part of being middle class. “Little pink houses for you and me,” as heartland rocker John Mellencamp sang, are the core of the American dream. But they are increasingly out of reach for most people, and particularly young people. Late last year, the National Association of Realtors reported that the median age of first-time homebuyers in the US hit 38. That’s up from 29 in the 1980s.

This growing age gap is in large part about prices. In June, the median price of a home sold in the US was $446,766, according to Redfin. But according to the National Association of Home Builders, roughly 75 per cent of Americans now can’t afford the median home. This has hit everyone hard, but home buying for Gen Z and millennials has basically flatlined since 2022.

You can already see the political implications of this in the rise of populist politicians like Zohran Mamdani, whose promised rent freezes were extremely popular with younger voters in the recent New York City mayoral primary. “His popularity reflects in part a generational breakdown in views of the housing system,” says Caroline Nagy, who studies housing for the non-profit consumer financial advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. “Everyone under 40 thinks everything about the system is broken.”

The generational political divide between boomers and young Americans isn’t just about housing — it’s also about who will get what share of the US wealth pie at a time when debt and deficit burdens will probably necessitate difficult fiscal choices in the years ahead. Will future politicians cut investments in education, or entitlements? Will they focus on climate change or healthcare?

But housing is where the buck stops now — and it reflects not only the struggle of younger people to move up the ladder, but the struggle of average homebuyers to compete with investors snapping up properties for cash.

In the years following the 2008 crisis, large private equity funds bought up single family homes, rental properties and even manufactured housing (otherwise known as mobile homes) on the cheap.
This prompted accusations of predatory control of the nation’s housing supply, along with lawsuits around deceptive pricing, junk fees, poor property maintenance and unfair evictions.

Last year, Invitation Homes, one of the largest institutional buyers of single-family homes, settled with the Federal Trade Commission in such a case, paying $48mn in refunds to renters for illegal practices. But while the largest investors have pulled back from the market somewhat, having already made their profits, small and mid-sized investors are buying more properties than ever, pushing investor control of new family homes to 30 per cent, the highest share on record.

These buyers can take more risk, as they have fewer reporting requirements, and are also benefiting from the way in which monetary policy has distorted the housing market. For years after 2008, low interest rates and quantitative easing helped push up housing prices. Now, there are a generation of Americans locked into low-rate mortgages who can’t afford to sell, because the combination of higher prices and higher interest rates means that they are better off financially staying where they are, even if they’d prefer to downsize or move geographically.

That adds to the problem of an already constrained supply of new homes on the market in the US (for lots of reasons, from zoning issues and Nimbyism to tariff-related hikes in the cost of building materials). This in turn pushes up rental prices, since fewer people can buy their own homes. In 2023, real rent costs (meaning the cost of rent plus fuel and utilities) grew at its fastest rate since 2011, according to the Census Bureau.

Throw in the problems in the housing market that stem from the actions of the Trump administration — from the gutting of consumer protections and federal regulatory bodies to the proposed privatisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government entities that underwrite most mortgages — and you have a situation that will only get more political. My worry is we’ll end up with yet another financial crisis (most probably crypto-related) that hits the real economy, constrains bank lending to new homeowners and adds fuel to the fire of the existing problems in housing.

All this might well give Donald Trump yet another reason to call for lower interest rates. But after decades of easy money, I doubt monetary stimulus would have the power to turn the market around the way it did following the 2008 crisis. Even without such an event, housing affordability and availability may end up being the biggest political issue of our lifetime. Shelter is, after all, something that everyone has a stake in.

Derby · « **Respuesta #2028 en:** **Hoy** a las 19:33:19 »

https://www.ft.com/content/6804c076-4961-4373-a4f8-1e59ab5d7f8b

Citar

‘Knives out’: Switzerland descends into blame game after US tariff shock

President Karin Keller-Sutter under fire for failed trade talks with Trump administration

(...) The result was a shocking 39 per cent tariff rate. Not only was it one of the highest globally, it was markedly higher than the 31 per cent levy on Switzerland Trump had announced in April on what he called “liberation day”. By comparison most other countries received a lower rate on August 1 compared with April.

The Alpine country itself has already abolished all industrial tariffs and the US is the country’s top export market for goods including watches, chocolate and machinery. It is also a huge investor in the US, with Nestlé, Roche and Novartis employing thousands of Americans.

Gold exports — often transiting through Switzerland for refining or trade — are largely responsible for the country’s trade deficit with the US. Yet both gold and pharmaceutical products are exempt from Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs”, adding to the bewilderment in Bern over what more it could offer.

“The problem is the Swiss believe we have to make reasonable and honest offers. We are not good at international power politics,” said one person close to the discussions. “There was uneasiness at making large pledges like other countries have that are not realistic. It was a painful lesson.”

But while Keller-Sutter received most of the blame, some corporate voices lashed out at the influential pharmaceutical sector for torpedoing the talks.

Swiss watchmaker Breitling’s chief executive Georges Kern said his country was being “held hostage” by the pharmaceutical industry that had irritated Trump.

Switzerland’s pharmaceuticals sector sends about 60 per cent of its exports to the US. Novartis and Roche’s US subsidiary Genentech were among the pharmaceutical companies that received letters from the Trump administration this week demanding that they lower drug prices. The Swiss companies have pledged billions in US investment this year.

Greer on Friday also homed in on pharma: “They ship enormous amounts of pharmaceuticals to our country, we want to be making pharmaceuticals in our country.”

The Swiss stock market, which was closed on Friday, is bracing itself for losses when trading resumes on Monday. Novartis, Roche and consumer goods group Nestlé, as well as luxury watch companies Richemont and Swatch are all listed on the Swiss exchange.

The Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, insists that Switzerland’s investment pledges could still result in a better deal.

“We have nine million people in Switzerland, yet our investment pledge per capita is much more than what Japan or the EU have pledged. If we talk about a $40bn trade deficit, one has to put that [in] perspective,” said Rahul Sahgal, chief executive of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce.

Sahgal, whose group was part of a number of rounds of negotiations between the two countries, said Switzerland needed to “try to figure out what else we can offer. We are seeing if we can have a meeting.”