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.
4 Usuarios y 149 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
ESTAFADORCILLOS.—El Capital & Dinero está dándole de hostias al propietariado. Pero no en el dinero fiduciario ni en los depósitos bancarios ni en las pensiones, tres columnas intocables de la estabilidad del sistema. Se las da donde más duele, en las propiedades mismas: –60%.
https://x.com/karpathy/status/1990116666194456651Saludos.
https://www.pressreader.com/spain/expansion-nacional-sabado/20251115/textview/page/2La crisis de vivienda llega a la periferiahttps://www.expansion.com/economia/2025/11/15/69176593e5fdeaca408b457b.htmlSaludos.
Cita de: tomasjos en Ayer a las 19:48:23El BCE baraja extender a más bancos las ventajas de los más pequeños https://share.google/qWW8Zl25CjyArpZbQhttps://www.expansion.com/mercados/2025/11/14/6917a0a2e5fdea4c318b4580.htmlSaludos.
El BCE baraja extender a más bancos las ventajas de los más pequeños https://share.google/qWW8Zl25CjyArpZbQ
https://www.pressreader.com/spain/expansion-nacional-sabado/20251115/textview/page/43Títulos alineados con el mercadoSaludos.
https://www.pressreader.com/spain/expansion-nacional-sabado/20251115/textview/page/46Un déficit de talento de graves consecuenciasSaludos.
ESTAFADORCILLOS.—La derecha está loquita porque El Ladrillo se ha revelado como la estafa que es y exige de ti que te conviertas en un estafadorcillo.Pero «se empieza estafando y se acaba asesinando», como decimos en muchos contextos para referirnos a la pendiente resbaladiza de la falta de escrúpulos.
Los actos inmorales, aunque parezcan menores al principio, escalan hacia crímenes mucho más graves si no se detienen a tiempo. Fíjense en lo que se han convertido Trump, Zelenski, Netanyahu, Milei, Ayuso.
Por esto solamente, al Capital & Dinero, dejó de interesarle El Ladrillo como narcótico para pobres. Le desestabilizaba. Y, a mediados de los 2000, se manifestó inequívocamente contra él.Entonces, los estafadorcillos se echaron al monte resentidísimos contra el sistema. Y hoy abundan contestatarios conservadores-del-popularcapitalismo (no del sistema capitalista).Y lo que era solo desestabilización se ha convertido en muerte.La contumacia de El Ladrillo ha tenido, pues, una consecuencia inesperada: ha despertado al gigante de la revolución, que había sido dormido por el propio El Ladrillo.Al final, el proletariado, en efecto, se erige como el enterrador del capitalismo, pero no como tal, sino metamorfoseado en ese payaso horripilante que es el propietariado.El Capital & Dinero está dándole de hostias al propietariado. Pero no en el dinero fiduciario ni en los depósitos bancarios ni en las pensiones, tres columnas intocables de la estabilidad del sistema. Se las da donde más duele, en las propiedades mismas: –60%. Aunque parezca lo contrario, las subidas de valores de catálogo por encima de los salarios en, por ejemplo, Madrid-Mierdrid, forman parte de la somanta de hostias que el Capital & Dinero le está dando al propietariado. Es precisamente por esto por lo que el sector no construye y enarbola el 'falta oferta', y se jiña en las autoridades monetarias y fiscales, ya por el lado del ingreso —impuestos—, ya por el lado del gasto —urbanismo—. Mal asunto para un conservador-de-lo-que-sea ir contra la autoridad, ¿o no? ¿O no les hace gracia lo rojos que se ponen los fachas últimamente?Ni que decir tiene que nosotros estamos con el Capital & Dinero en la erradicación de esta estafa, la estafa más grande de la historia, tanto que podemos ya decir que ha cambiado el orden económico mundial.Otro día diremos qué es eso del Capital & Dinero, aunque lo mejor de este blog sabe exactamente a qué realidades contables, no metafísicas, nos referimos.
What happens when housing supply is driven by markets not Main StreetHome prices in America won’t come down without systemic reform© Matt KenyonHousing is shelter, but it is also an asset class. That fact is often forgotten in the conversation about nosebleed home prices and what to do about them, particularly in the US. From rent freezes (on the populist left) to rezoning and deregulation (the “abundance” left) to a proposal for government-backed 50-year mortgages (Trump’s latest), everyone has thoughts. But if you don’t start by looking at the systemic changes in the market that turned homes into a tradeable asset, you can’t begin to fix the broader problem.It is a problem that will be high on the midterm election agenda, and one that dovetails with another political hot button issue: increasing market concentration in a handful of large firms.Supply shortage is a major reason for home inflation. There are myriad reasons for this — from rising construction costs to higher interest rates. But one major under-explored reason that supply has lagged demand since the Great Financial Crisis is the fact that the small lenders and builders that have traditionally been responsible for meeting housing demand in America have been crushed by bigger players better able to leverage scale in a highly financialised housing market.A new report from the American Economic Liberties Project, a Washington DC-based non-profit that looks at monopoly issues, outlines how policymakers on both sides of the aisle have over the last several decades taken decisions that favoured the largest market participants. These big lenders and builders have sometimes created artificial scarcity designed to bolster profits rather than increase the actual number of homes being built. While not a quantitative study, the report makes a strong case that rethinking both financialisation and concentration in home-building and lending could help solve the affordability issue.As anyone who’s ever watched It’s A Wonderful Life knows, community savings and loans used to support the majority of new home construction and purchasing in the US. New Deal policies favoured smaller lenders, who were legally required to channel local deposits into local homebuilding. But by the late 1970s, inflation, interest rate hikes and the Reagan era deregulation that followed created a difficult environment for smaller builders (who had less ability to cope with higher rates) and S&Ls, which were incentivised not just to lend but to trade. Within a decade, half went under, and both homebuilding and banking have been consolidating ever since.Nearly half of all new single-family American homes are, for example, built by the largest, publicly traded construction companies — DR Horton, the Lennar Corporation, the Toll Brothers, among others. Those institutions are, like any public company, beholden to shareholders, not borrowers, meaning a lot of free cash goes to share buybacks, and companies are encouraged to do whatever it takes to keep margins high. That might include things like keeping home inventories, starts and even land controlled in a way that maximises price but not necessarily volume. As the AELP report notes, the practice of “land banking,” which involves the buying or optioning and holding of large tracts of land until it is financially optimal for the builder to release it, is now commonplace.Big banks of course prefer to deal with the big builders, who bring larger scale projects and profits. There is a good deal of empirical evidence that shows that as banks themselves become bigger, they lend less to small businesses. All of it creates a paradigm in which housing supply is driven by the markets, rather than Main Street. This makes housing more scarce and less affordable for average people.That’s not to say that investors don’t have a role to play in the housing market. Private equity firms helped set a floor under the housing market in the wake of the Great Financial Crisis, for example. They also profited massively from snapping up properties for cheap on courthouse steps in ways that would have been impossible for individual home buyers. In my own reporting, I’ve found that the closer the ties of the investor to the community in which they are working, the better the alignment of interests between profit-making, housing availability and affordability tends to be. It is harder to screw people over if you see them in the grocery store.What should policymakers take from all of this? At a national level, the anti-monopoly factions in the Trump administration might think about how to expand support to local homebuilders and scrutinise industry consolidation rather than just giving corporate tax breaks to the giants. At a state and local level, a land-value tax would discourage land hoarding, and the number of properties that can be owned by any single corporate landlord should be limited. Concentration is the enemy of supply.Policymakers also need a more systemic understanding of the housing market. I was encouraged by a recent profile of New York’s newly elected mayor Zohran Mamdani, which indicated he might have a more sophisticated view than I had previously thought. In 2020, Mamdani told a reporter, “What I’ve seen in my work is, it’s not tenant versus homeowner.” The affordability crisis is, rather, “tenant and homeowner versus financial speculator and investment bank portfolio”. Housing should be about shelter first and foremost — not investors’ profits.