PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Invierno 2025

[muyuu]

https://xcancel.com/expansioncom/status/2014698366601429352

[muyuu]

muchas aerolíneas evitando el espacio aéreo de Irán y cancelando vuelos

se rumorea ataque

pero igual pasa como en Venezuela que lo aplazaron 3-4 veces por las condiciones meteorológicas

EDIT: no había visto el anuncio

https://xcancel.com/TrumpTruthOnX/status/2014808407640006950

[Cadavre Exquis]

US Formally Withdraws From WHO
Posted by msmash on Friday January 23, 2026 @09:00AM from the brave-new-world dept.

The United States formally withdrew from the World Health Organization on Thursday, making good on an executive order that President Trump issued on his first day in office pledging to leave the international organization that coordinates global responses to public health threats. The New York Times:

While the United States is walking away from the organization, a senior official with the Department of Health and Human Services told reporters on Thursday that the Trump administration was considering some type of narrow, limited engagement with W.H.O. global networks that track infectious diseases, including influenza.

As a W.H.O. member, the United States long sent scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to participate in international decision-making about which strains to include in the flu vaccine. A W.H.O. meeting on next year's vaccine is scheduled for February. The official said the Trump administration would soon disclose how or whether it will participate.

On Thursday, the administration said that all U.S. government funding to the organization had been terminated, and that all assigned federal employees and contractors had been recalled from its Geneva headquarters and its offices worldwide.

Saludos.

California Becomes First State To Join WHO Disease Network After US Exit
Posted by BeauHD on Friday January 23, 2026 @09:02PM from the WHO-needs-Washington? dept.

California became the first U.S. state to join the World Health Organization's Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), one day after the U.S. formally exited the WHO. The Hill reports:
This announcement comes just one day after the U.S.'s withdrawal from the WHO became official after nearly 80 years of membership, having been a founding member of the organization. "The Trump administration's withdrawal from WHO is a reckless decision that will hurt all Californians and Americans," [California Governor Gavin Newsom] said in a statement. "California will not bear witness to the chaos this decision will bring. We will continue to foster partnerships across the globe and remain at the forefront of public health preparedness, including through our membership as the only state in WHO's Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network."

Saludos.

[senslev]

Con propiedad. Masterclass para entender el problema de la vivienda.

https://abundancia.maria-alvarez.com/p/con-propiedad-masterclass-para-entender

[patxarana]

Con propiedad. Masterclass para entender el problema de la vivienda.

https://abundancia.maria-alvarez.com/p/con-propiedad-masterclass-para-entender

Qué maravilla. Gracias por traerlo.

[asustadísimos]

Con propiedad. Masterclass para entender el problema de la vivienda.

https://abundancia.maria-alvarez.com/p/con-propiedad-masterclass-para-entender

Absoluta falta de Enfoque de la Renta y, por ende, absoluta falta de conciencia acerca de la estafa (= engaño + daño).

Uso cándido de las abstracciones metafísicas de la retórica engañosa, particularmente, de las dos nucleares: oferta y demanda, e inyección de liquidez.

El Ladrillo no es un título-valor que representa una cuota sobre un hipotético neto patrimonial nacional que se revaloriza. Es un timojuego de dinero sin trabajar ni emprender.

Vas con tu cuñao por la calle, miráis una casa y él dice «vale X». En realidad, su cerebro ha pensado, primero, «se le puede sacar X...». Pero, a continuación, «... si es que no viene un enterao y jode el rollo». Esto es lo que hay: cuñaos estafadorcillos en lucha contra lo que llaman 'agentes sociales indeseables'.

Lo demás, pajas mentales, abstracciones metafísicas, pequeños mundos de señor Feliciano y filosofetas de barra de bar, en el 100% de los casos, sin rigor conceptual. Solo, bla, bla, bla.

¡Lástima que el Capital & Dinero estén hasta la coronilla de financiar tanto menosprecio infligido por capitalistitas de medio pelo!, le diría a María Álvarez.

Finalmente, falta conciencia también acerca de que, en 2026, ya no estamos transicionando, sino 'in the midst of a rupture', falta de conciencia que es supercomún en Madrid y, en general, donde haya más pobretones, hidalgos de caldo claro y señoritas Pepis por metro cuadrado.

¡Cuidado! Hay discursos que parecen majos, pero funcionalmente son reaccionarios.

[muyuu]

Con propiedad. Masterclass para entender el problema de la vivienda.

https://abundancia.maria-alvarez.com/p/con-propiedad-masterclass-para-entender

Llama la atención verlo en negro sobre blanco, y en el artículo pone mucho más que eso, pero lo cierto es que rara vez se admite explícitamente que el "mercado de la vivienda" apenas se puede considerar un mercado y no es libre ni lo ha sido nunca.

En España hay una admisión explícita de eso desde la edad media, y formal con la desamortización de finales del siglo 18. Tal vez por influencia del liberalismo de la revolución industrial hay esta tendencia a enmarcar las cosas como si por defecto fueran un mercado, además un mercado libre, y además - y aquí es donde entra la psicosis colectiva - un mercado libre eficiente, que funciona bien.

Un mercado libre y eficiente es algo que ocurre casi nunca aparte de en mercados de productos de consumo. La regla general es que sea líquido, funcional, de información y acceso no asimétricos.

Pues bien un mercado que se sabe no líquido, no funcional, de información MUY asimétrica y de acceso MUY asimétrico, se habla de él como si fuera un mercado libre eficiente. 

Por eso cuando se habla e restringir la compra a fondos de inversión, extranjeros, o cualquier actor, muchos se llevan las manos a la cabeza como si estuviéramos hablando de adoptar el Juche norcoreano. La vivienda no es ni va a funcionar como un mercado libre por desearlo muy fuerte. No lo puede ser por las razones expuestas en el artículo, muchas de ellas obvias pero no por ello aceptadas.

Consecuencia tal vez de no mirarlo con perspectiva histórica es que se obvie el patrón absolutamente feudal de extraer renta a las personas a través de decretar la propiedad del suelo que pisan y del que no pueden realmente escapar ya que el sistema se aplica a todo el suelo.

[muyuu]

me ha parecido muy representativo de la retórica estadounidense actual esta entrevista:

Howard Lutnick (candidato a secretario de Comercio de Estados Unidos), Rachel Reeves (canciller del Exchequer(hacienda) del Reino Unido) y un moderador (el historiador Adam Tooze) en el Foro Económico Mundial de 2026 en Davos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLvswrsKbo

🇬🇧 english

Howard Lutnick: Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It's a failed policy.

Rachel Reeves: We can't do everything on our own and nor should we try to because we'd end up doing nothing well, but we do have real strengths in the UK.

Howard Lutnick: I viewed the WEF as not a flag pole in the middle, but in fact, they are the flag. Whichever way the wind blew, so it blew. You should have solar, you should have wind.

Rachel Reeves: We do need to think about what the who where the threats are and who our friends are. And I think that's probably more stark for smaller economies, but even for the US.

Howard Lutnick: Why are you going to do solar and wind? Why would Europe agree to be net zero in 2030 when they don't make a battery? THEY DON'T MAKE A BATTERY. So if they go 2030, they are deciding to be subservient to China who makes the batteries. Why would you do that?

Rachel Reeves: You do have some reserves of critical minerals, but not everything you need. 90% of your critical minerals at the moment come from China. You need to wean yourself off those. Sure. Yeah. But you won't be able to do that without the help of Canada and Australia and other countries. And so for all of your strengths, we do also need to think how we can preserve some of the things that the US has benefited from in the NATO alliance and the Western alliance. Not because it is the benevolent or the right thing to do, but because I profoundly believe it is in your country's national interest.

Howard Lutnick: When America shines, the world shines. Close your eyes and think of a world without America in it. It becomes pretty dark pretty darn quickly. When America shines, right? And everyone said, "Oh, you're going to do all these tariffs. You're going to destroy the world." The world's stock markets are up. Which ones of them? All of them.

Rachel Reeves: If you say, could you picture the world without the US and what would the world be like? Yeah, the world would be a lot poorer and it would be a lot scarier. Um, but you've also got a lot of allies around the world in the United States. The solution is going to be different in every country. But what I would urge Howard and others in the administration just to think of is how your allies can also help you achieve your objectives.

Moderator (Adam Tooze): Give us maybe an insight, an explanation. I think a lot of people are looking at Davos to see and to try and better understand the mindset of the Trump administration. Speaking to you earlier on, it's the first time I've had the privilege of meeting you. I've seen you on TV a lot, and in person the impression is even more overwhelming of on the one hand kind of extraordinarily ebullient, dynamic.

Howard Lutnick: In a nice way.

Moderator: Dynamic. These are good words. These are all good. I'm coming to a different tone in a second. But like initially it's this just extraordinary brilliance, dynamism. And you were saying you've sealed deals for a trillion and a half in jobs and investment into the United States.

Howard Lutnick: Yes.

Moderator: And then you said, and this is where the tone shifts. You got to understand, I'm the hammer. These were your words. I'm the hammer. Because the people I'm dealing with know that unless they deliver the kind of investments I'm looking for, I'm coming with 100% tariffs. And that duality I think between the dynamism, the constructiveness, the forcefulness of the American state, which was after all also something many of us saw in the Biden administration and this element of threat is what many of us are actually trying to come to terms with because this is to say the least unfamiliar. And when it moves from the zone of economic policy to the question that is directly under the subtitle of our talk today, which is sovereignty, and we're talking about the territory of Greenland, and it's coupled so directly to tariffs, it's a fundamental shock to the system. You can read it off the faces and the rhetoric of every single European politician, business person that I've spoken to while we've been here. And we're also getting reactions from around the world in similar tones. So, I really wanted to ask you to help us understand not in a sense what your motivations are because I get it like you want Greenland. It makes sense. You're proud Americans. You're advocates of President Trump's policy. What I'm struggling more with is how you imagine others react to this. I mean, if you put yourself in the position of your Danish counterpart who's a proud Dane and a loyal executive of the Danish government's position, how do you envision this going down?

Howard Lutnick: Well, I think you should start at a much higher level.

Moderator: Okay.

Howard Lutnick: Okay. We are in Davos at the World Economic Forum and the Trump administration and myself, we are here to make a very clear point. Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It's a failed policy. It is what the WEF has stood for which is export offshore, farshore, find the cheapest labor in the world and the world is a better place for it. The fact is it has left America behind. It has left the American workers behind. And what we are here to say is that America first is a different model, one that we encourage other countries to consider, which is that our workers come first. We can have policies that impact our workers. Sovereignty is your borders. You're entitled to have borders. You shouldn't offshore your medicine. You shouldn't offshore your semiconductors. You shouldn't offshore your entire industrial base and have it be hollowed out beneath you. You should not be dependent for that which is fundamental to your sovereignty on any other nation. And if you're going to be dependent on someone, it darn well better be your best allies. Okay? And so that is a different way of thinking. It is completely different than the WEF. I viewed the WEF as not a flag pole in the middle, but in fact they are the flag whichever way the wind blew, so it blew. You should have solar. You should have wind. Why are you going to do solar and wind? Why would Europe agree to be net zero in 2030 when they don't make a battery? THEY DON'T MAKE A BATTERY. So if they go 2030, they are deciding to be subservient to China who makes the batteries. Why would you do that? Why would the United States of America which has oil and natural gas try to convert to all electricity? China does not have oil and natural gas. Electricity and electric cars make perfect sense to them. That is practical and logical. So the point I want to make and I want people to think about is that America first is the job of our government to take care of our workers to make sure their lives are better for it and then don't be America alone, right? But be America first. And I would suggest that policy is something for other countries to deeply consider to take care of their own and then we will work out wonderful relationships between us.

Howard Lutnick: But I want to point out when America shines, the world shines. Close your eyes and think of a world without America in it. It becomes pretty dark pretty darn quickly. When America shines, right? And everyone said, "Oh, you're going to do all these tariffs. You're going to destroy the world." The world's stock markets are up. Which ones of them? All of them.

Moderator: Can I bring you back to Greenland?

Howard Lutnick: No, it's unnecessary. The Western Hemisphere is vital for the United States of America. Our national security people are on it and they care about it. And I'm going to leave it to them to address with our allies, with our friends, and with everyone how they work it out. But the Western Hemisphere matters to the United States of America. And the United States of America, as I've just articulated, really, really matters to the world. When America shines, the world shines because they all need to make sure America is strong and powerful to take care of them. God forbid. And so I think America and the Western Hemisphere are vital to America. And I'm going to leave that to my national security people to address.

Moderator: Right. The rest of us, I think, are finding it harder to make that kind of separation clearly. And I would be curious to know how the representatives of the UK and Canada might want to think about these issues. Do you see them as starkly divided as Secretary Lutnick would like us to have them? Does this logic of what's good for America is good for the world convince in this extraordinarily strong, extremely eloquent expression that we've just heard?

Canadian Representative: Thank you. *(to Rachel Reeves:)* You go first. We're friends.

Rachel Reeves: So, I'm very struck by and taken by the idea of putting your own country first and considering your own security and resilience. I think it's about three years ago now that I gave a speech where I coined the term securonomics which was all about building security and resilience in your economy and the days when it didn't matter where things were made and who made them were in the past and that's become increasingly clear since the pandemic when we were over reliant on PPE and medicines from abroad and then again when Russia invaded Ukraine because of what happened to oil and gas prices.

I guess for an economy like the UK, the way in which we will pursue our national interest is going to be different from the way in which the US pursues theirs. You are a much bigger economy and we can't do everything on our own and nor should we try to because we'd end up doing nothing well. But we do have real strengths in the UK, in our defense sector, in life sciences, in business and financial services. But we do rely on our allies as well. And even a country as big and as strong as America also relies on its allies. And I guess the sort of area where I think that we do need to continue that dialogue between countries that share each other's values is how we can work together in our mutual interests to advance our values in a very unstable and uncertain world. And you know if you say could you picture the world without the US and what would the world be like, yeah the world would be a lot poorer and it would be a lot scarier. But you've also got a lot of allies around the world in the United States. Britain, I know, I hope, I believe is your strongest ally.

Howard Lutnick: Always has been with us. We love you. We do. We do.

Rachel Reeves: Thank you very much. The feeling is mutual. But we do need to think about what the who where the threats are and who our friends are. And I think that's probably more stark for smaller economies, but even for the US when you think about... I was in the states as you know last week for a meeting of G7 plus a few other finance ministers to talk around critical minerals. Now you do have some reserves of critical minerals but not everything you need. 90% of your critical minerals at the moment come from China. You need to wean yourself off those. Yeah. But you won't be able to do that without the help of Canada and Australia and other countries. And so for all of your strengths, we do also need to think how we can preserve some of the things that the US has benefited from in the NATO alliance and the Western alliance. Not because it is the benevolent or the right thing to do, but because I profoundly believe it is in your country's national interest.

The other thing I just wanted to say Adam in terms of building security and resilience but for my country it's about our industrial strategy where we're really focusing on these sectors where we are really good but we're not going to be a semiconductor superpower in the UK, that's not realistic, but we've got friends. Yeah, life sciences, biotech, financial services which is obviously absolutely crucial for financing things like the exploration for critical minerals and the extraction of those critical minerals. We've got real strength with the London Metal Exchange in London for example. But although we have some reserves of lithium and tungsten, we're not going to be a big global supplier of critical minerals. So we have strengths. Defense is another one. And our trade strategy is also around our security and resilience where we are trying, and this is different from the US approach, I absolutely acknowledge that, we are trying to reduce barriers to trade. You know, we've done trade deals this year with you, with India, with Korea, and we're also reducing trade barriers with the EU. There's more that we want to do together between the UK and Canada. We regard it in our national interest to reduce cost of living for people in Britain, but also providing more opportunities for businesses in the UK to then export around the world. And, you know, energy security is important to us as well. We do have some reserves of North Sea oil and gas and they will be important for many decades to come. But we are a net importer of oil and gas. We do have because of the shallow waters in our seas big opportunities around wind technology. We don't have what you have in the US. And so we've got to find our own way to boost our energy security. And we strongly believe that renewables is a really important part of that mix as is nuclear. There hasn't been sufficient investment in nuclear for a long time. We've signed off Sizewell C, a big nuclear reactor, as well as small modular reactor in North Wales. So you know that security for us is around energy security, our security through our industrial strategy and our trade strategy as well. So I think a lot of shared analysis of what the problem is. The solution is going to be different in every country. But what I would urge Howard and others in the administration just to think of is how your allies can also help you achieve your objectives, which I think are in your national interest as well as helping all of the western world to thrive.

🇪🇸 español

Howard Lutnick: La globalización ha fracasado para Occidente y para Estados Unidos. Es una política fallida.

Rachel Reeves: No podemos hacerlo todo por nuestra cuenta ni deberíamos intentarlo, porque acabaríamos no haciendo nada bien, pero sí tenemos fortalezas reales en el Reino Unido.

Howard Lutnick: Yo veía al WEF no como un mástil con una bandera en el centro, sino como la propia bandera. Soplara el viento hacia donde soplara, ellos iban en esa dirección. “Tienes que tener solar, tienes que tener eólica”.

Rachel Reeves: Sí tenemos que pensar quiénes son las amenazas y quiénes son nuestros amigos. Y creo que eso es probablemente más evidente para economías más pequeñas, pero incluso para Estados Unidos.

Howard Lutnick: ¿Por qué vas a apostar por la solar y la eólica? ¿Por qué aceptaría Europa ser neutra en carbono en 2030 cuando no fabrica baterías? NO FABRICA BATERÍAS. Así que si va a 2030, está decidiendo ser subordinada de China, que es quien fabrica las baterías. ¿Por qué harías eso?

Rachel Reeves: Tenéis algunas reservas de minerales críticos, pero no todo lo que necesitáis. El 90 % de vuestros minerales críticos ahora mismo proviene de China. Tenéis que ir desvinculándoos de eso, claro. Pero no vais a poder hacerlo sin la ayuda de Canadá, Australia y otros países. Y por muchas fortalezas que tengáis, también tenemos que pensar cómo podemos preservar algunas de las cosas de las que Estados Unidos se ha beneficiado en la alianza de la OTAN y en la alianza occidental. No porque sea lo benévolo o lo moralmente correcto, sino porque creo profundamente que va en el interés nacional de vuestro país.

Howard Lutnick: Cuando Estados Unidos brilla, el mundo brilla. Cerrad los ojos y pensad en un mundo sin Estados Unidos. Se vuelve bastante oscuro muy rápidamente. Cuando Estados Unidos brilla, ¿verdad? Y todo el mundo decía: “Oh, vais a imponer todos estos aranceles, vais a destruir el mundo”. Los mercados bursátiles mundiales están al alza. ¿Cuáles? Todos.

Rachel Reeves: Si dices: ¿puedes imaginar el mundo sin Estados Unidos y cómo sería? Sí, el mundo sería mucho más pobre y mucho más inseguro. Pero también tenéis muchos aliados en todo el mundo. La solución va a ser distinta en cada país. Pero lo que yo pediría a Howard y a otros miembros de la administración es que piensen en cómo vuestros aliados también pueden ayudaros a alcanzar vuestros objetivos.

Moderador (Adam Tooze): Quizá podrías darnos una perspectiva, una explicación. Creo que mucha gente está mirando a Davos para intentar entender mejor la mentalidad de la administración Trump. Al hablar contigo antes, ha sido la primera vez que he tenido el privilegio de conocerte en persona. Te he visto mucho en televisión y, en persona, la impresión es aún más abrumadora: por un lado, extraordinariamente exuberante, dinámico.

Howard Lutnick: En el buen sentido.

Moderador: Dinámico. Son palabras buenas, todas buenas. En un momento paso a un tono distinto. Pero al principio es esta brillantez, este dinamismo extraordinarios. Y decías que has cerrado acuerdos por valor de un billón y medio en empleo e inversión en Estados Unidos.

Howard Lutnick: Sí.

Moderador: Y luego dijiste —y aquí es donde cambia el tono—: tenéis que entenderlo, yo soy el martillo. Fueron tus palabras. Soy el martillo. Porque la gente con la que trato sabe que, si no cumplen con el tipo de inversiones que estoy buscando, voy a venir con aranceles del 100 %. Y esa dualidad entre dinamismo, constructividad y la contundencia del Estado estadounidense —algo que, al fin y al cabo, muchos de nosotros también vimos en la administración Biden— y este elemento de amenaza es lo que muchos estamos intentando asimilar, porque como mínimo es algo nuevo. Y cuando se pasa del ámbito de la política económica a la cuestión que está directamente en el subtítulo de nuestra charla de hoy, que es la soberanía, y hablamos del territorio de Groenlandia, y se vincula tan directamente a los aranceles, es un choque fundamental para el sistema. Se puede leer en los rostros y en la retórica de todos y cada uno de los políticos y empresarios europeos con los que he hablado desde que estamos aquí. Y también estamos recibiendo reacciones del resto del mundo en tonos similares. Así que quería pedirte que nos ayudes a entender no tanto cuáles son vuestras motivaciones —porque lo entiendo: queréis Groenlandia, tiene sentido, sois estadounidenses orgullosos, defensores de la política del presidente Trump— sino más bien cómo imagináis que reaccionan los demás. Quiero decir, si te pones en el lugar de tu homólogo danés, que es un danés orgulloso y un representante leal de la posición del gobierno danés, ¿cómo imaginas que se desarrollará esto?

Howard Lutnick: Bueno, creo que deberías empezar desde un nivel mucho más alto.

Moderador: De acuerdo.

Howard Lutnick: Estamos en Davos, en el Foro Económico Mundial, y la administración Trump y yo mismo estamos aquí para hacer un punto muy claro. La globalización ha fracasado para Occidente y para Estados Unidos. Es una política fallida. Es aquello que ha defendido el WEF: exportar, deslocalizar, irse lejos, encontrar la mano de obra más barata del mundo y asumir que el mundo es mejor por ello. El hecho es que ha dejado atrás a Estados Unidos. Ha dejado atrás a los trabajadores estadounidenses. Y lo que venimos a decir aquí es que “Estados Unidos primero” es un modelo distinto, uno que animamos a otros países a considerar: nuestros trabajadores van primero. Podemos tener políticas que tengan en cuenta a nuestros trabajadores. La soberanía son tus fronteras. Tienes derecho a tener fronteras. No deberías deslocalizar tus medicamentos. No deberías deslocalizar tus semiconductores. No deberías deslocalizar toda tu base industrial y vaciarla por debajo. No deberías depender de ningún otro país para aquello que es fundamental para tu soberanía. Y si vas a depender de alguien, más vale que sea de tus mejores aliados. ¿De acuerdo? Es una forma distinta de pensar, completamente distinta a la del WEF. Yo veía al WEF no como un mástil con una bandera en el centro, sino como la bandera misma: soplara el viento hacia donde soplara, ellos iban en esa dirección. “Tenéis que tener solar, tenéis que tener eólica”. ¿Por qué vais a apostar por la solar y la eólica? ¿Por qué aceptaría Europa ser neutra en carbono en 2030 cuando no fabrica baterías? NO FABRICA BATERÍAS. Así que si va a 2030, está decidiendo ser subordinada de China, que es quien fabrica las baterías. ¿Por qué harías eso? ¿Por qué Estados Unidos, que tiene petróleo y gas natural, intentaría convertirse completamente a la electricidad? China no tiene petróleo ni gas natural. La electricidad y los coches eléctricos tienen todo el sentido para ellos. Es práctico y lógico. Así que el punto que quiero plantear, y sobre el que quiero que la gente reflexione, es que “Estados Unidos primero” es el trabajo de nuestro gobierno: cuidar de nuestros trabajadores, asegurarse de que sus vidas sean mejores. Y luego no ser “Estados Unidos solo”, ¿vale?, sino “Estados Unidos primero”. Y sugeriría que esta política es algo que otros países deberían considerar seriamente: cuidar de los suyos y luego estableceremos relaciones estupendas entre todos.

Howard Lutnick: Pero quiero señalar algo: cuando Estados Unidos brilla, el mundo brilla. Cerrad los ojos y pensad en un mundo sin Estados Unidos. Se vuelve bastante oscuro muy rápidamente. Cuando Estados Unidos brilla. Y todo el mundo decía: “Oh, vais a imponer todos estos aranceles, vais a destruir el mundo”. Los mercados bursátiles mundiales están al alza. ¿Cuáles? Todos.

Moderador: ¿Puedo devolverte a Groenlandia?

Howard Lutnick: No, no es necesario. El hemisferio occidental es vital para Estados Unidos. Nuestra gente de seguridad nacional se está ocupando de ello y le da importancia. Y voy a dejar que sean ellos quienes lo aborden con nuestros aliados, con nuestros amigos y con todos los demás. Pero el hemisferio occidental importa a Estados Unidos. Y Estados Unidos, como acabo de explicar, importa muchísimo al mundo. Cuando Estados Unidos brilla, el mundo brilla, porque todos necesitan asegurarse de que Estados Unidos sea fuerte y poderoso para cuidar de ellos. Dios no lo quiera. Así que creo que Estados Unidos y el hemisferio occidental son vitales para Estados Unidos. Y voy a dejar este asunto en manos de mi gente de seguridad nacional.

Moderador: Bien. El resto de nosotros, creo, tenemos más dificultades para hacer esa separación tan claramente. Y me gustaría saber cómo los representantes del Reino Unido y de Canadá quieren pensar sobre estas cuestiones. ¿Las ven tan claramente separadas como le gustaría al secretario Lutnick? ¿Convence esta lógica de que lo que es bueno para Estados Unidos es bueno para el mundo, expresada con tanta fuerza y elocuencia como acabamos de escuchar?

Representante canadiense: Gracias. *(A Rachel Reeves:)* Empiezas tú. Somos amigos.

Rachel Reeves: Me llama mucho la atención y me parece convincente la idea de poner a tu propio país en primer lugar y pensar en tu seguridad y tu resiliencia. Creo que fue hace unos tres años cuando di un discurso en el que acuñé el término “securonomía”, que consistía precisamente en construir seguridad y resiliencia en la economía, y en que los días en los que daba igual dónde se fabricaban las cosas y quién las fabricaba han quedado atrás. Eso se ha hecho cada vez más evidente desde la pandemia, cuando dependíamos en exceso del exterior para los EPI y los medicamentos, y luego de nuevo cuando Rusia invadió Ucrania y vimos lo que ocurrió con los precios del petróleo y el gas.

Supongo que, para una economía como la del Reino Unido, la forma en la que perseguimos nuestro interés nacional va a ser distinta de la forma en la que lo hace Estados Unidos. Sois una economía mucho mayor y nosotros no podemos hacerlo todo por nuestra cuenta ni deberíamos intentarlo, porque acabaríamos no haciendo nada bien. Pero sí tenemos fortalezas reales en el Reino Unido: en el sector de la defensa, en las ciencias de la vida, en los servicios empresariales y financieros. Pero también dependemos de nuestros aliados. E incluso un país tan grande y fuerte como Estados Unidos depende de sus aliados. Y creo que el ámbito en el que debemos seguir manteniendo este diálogo entre países que comparten valores es cómo podemos trabajar juntos, en nuestros intereses mutuos, para defender esos valores en un mundo muy inestable e incierto. Y si dices: ¿puedes imaginar el mundo sin Estados Unidos?, sí, el mundo sería mucho más pobre y mucho más aterrador. Pero Estados Unidos también tiene muchos aliados en todo el mundo. Reino Unido —lo sé, lo espero, lo creo— es vuestro aliado más fuerte.

Howard Lutnick: Siempre lo ha sido. Os queremos. De verdad.

Rachel Reeves: Muchas gracias. El sentimiento es mutuo. Pero sí tenemos que pensar quiénes son las amenazas y quiénes son nuestros amigos. Y creo que eso es especialmente claro para economías más pequeñas, pero incluso para Estados Unidos. Estuve en Estados Unidos, como sabes, la semana pasada, en una reunión del G7 más algunos otros ministros de Finanzas para hablar de minerales críticos. Tenéis algunas reservas de minerales críticos, pero no todo lo que necesitáis. El 90 % de vuestros minerales críticos ahora mismo procede de China. Tenéis que ir reduciendo esa dependencia. Sí. Pero no vais a poder hacerlo sin la ayuda de Canadá, Australia y otros países. Y por muchas fortalezas que tengáis, también tenemos que pensar cómo podemos preservar algunas de las cosas de las que Estados Unidos se ha beneficiado en la alianza de la OTAN y en la alianza occidental. No porque sea lo benévolo o lo moralmente correcto, sino porque creo profundamente que va en el interés nacional de vuestro país.

La otra cosa que quería decir, Adam, en relación con la construcción de seguridad y resiliencia, es que para mi país tiene que ver con nuestra estrategia industrial: centrarnos en aquellos sectores en los que somos realmente buenos. No vamos a ser una superpotencia en semiconductores en el Reino Unido; eso no es realista. Pero tenemos amigos. Ciencias de la vida, biotecnología, servicios financieros —que son absolutamente cruciales para financiar cosas como la exploración y extracción de minerales críticos—. Tenemos una fortaleza real, por ejemplo, con la Bolsa de Metales de Londres. Pero aunque tenemos algunas reservas de litio y wolframio, no vamos a ser un gran proveedor global de minerales críticos. Así que tenemos fortalezas. La defensa es otra. Y nuestra estrategia comercial también está vinculada a nuestra seguridad y resiliencia. Intentamos —y reconozco que esto es distinto del enfoque de Estados Unidos— reducir las barreras al comercio. Este año hemos firmado acuerdos comerciales con vosotros, con India, con Corea, y también estamos reduciendo barreras comerciales con la UE. Hay más cosas que queremos hacer conjuntamente entre el Reino Unido y Canadá. Consideramos que va en nuestro interés nacional reducir el coste de la vida para la gente en Reino Unido, pero también ofrecer más oportunidades a las empresas británicas para exportar al resto del mundo. Y la seguridad energética también es importante para nosotros. Tenemos algunas reservas de petróleo y gas del Mar del Norte y seguirán siendo importantes durante muchas décadas. Pero somos importadores netos de petróleo y gas. Y, debido a las aguas poco profundas de nuestros mares, tenemos grandes oportunidades en tecnología eólica. No tenemos lo que tenéis vosotros en Estados Unidos. Así que tenemos que encontrar nuestra propia manera de reforzar nuestra seguridad energética. Creemos firmemente que las energías renovables son una parte muy importante de esa combinación, al igual que la energía nuclear. Durante mucho tiempo no ha habido suficiente inversión en nuclear. Hemos dado luz verde a Sizewell C, un gran reactor nuclear, así como a un reactor modular pequeño en el norte de Gales. Así que, para nosotros, la seguridad pasa por la seguridad energética, por nuestra estrategia industrial y por nuestra estrategia comercial. Creo que compartimos en gran medida el análisis del problema. La solución va a ser distinta en cada país. Pero lo que pediría a Howard y a otros en la administración es que piensen en cómo vuestros aliados también pueden ayudaros a alcanzar vuestros objetivos, que creo que van en vuestro interés nacional y también en el de todo el mundo occidental.

[senslev]

https://x.com/David_J_Bier/status/2015089069953343817?s=20

Para llorar. La Gestapo de USA asesinando a sus ciudadanos.

La ausencia de pensamiento crítico transforma a individuos ordinarios en agentes del mal a través de un proceso de **despersonalización y renuncia a la capacidad de juzgar**, lo que Hannah Arendt denominó la **"banalidad del mal"**. Según las fuentes, este fenómeno se manifiesta de las siguientes maneras:

*  **La renuncia a ser "persona":** El mal a gran escala no suele ser cometido por monstruos o fanáticos, sino por "nadies": burócratas que renuncian a sus rasgos personales para convertirse en simples engranajes de una maquinaria. Al actuar únicamente por obediencia y sin iniciativa propia, estos individuos se resisten a ser personas, lo que les permite ejecutar crímenes atroces sin sentir una responsabilidad moral directa.

*   **La pérdida del diálogo interno:** Las fuentes definen el pensamiento como un **"diálogo silencioso con uno mismo"**. Cuando este diálogo desaparece, el individuo pierde la facultad de juzgar, es decir, la habilidad de diferenciar lo bueno de lo malo o lo bello de lo feo. Sin este ejercicio de reflexión, una persona "terriblemente normal" puede participar en asesinatos masivos simplemente porque no se detiene a pensar en las consecuencias de sus actos.

*   **El refugio en la burocracia y el deber:** La ausencia de pensamiento crítico lleva al individuo a justificar sus acciones bajo la premisa de que solo está **"cumpliendo con su deber"** o siguiendo órdenes superiores. Esta mentalidad burocrática y meticulosa permite que la normalidad coexista con la ejecución de horrores, ya que el sujeto se enfoca en la eficacia de su tarea administrativa y no en la naturaleza del crimen que está facilitando.

*   **La atomización del "hombre masa":** El sistema totalitario se nutre del llamado "pequeño burgués" u **"hombre masa"**, individuos atomizados y sin conciencia social que están dispuestos a asumir cualquier función con tal de proteger su seguridad y bienestar privado. Esta falta de compromiso con la esfera pública y la pluralidad de puntos de vista facilita que el régimen imponga una lógica absoluta que subordina a los individuos.

Las fuentes también mencionan que esta tendencia a la obediencia ciega fue validada por estudios como el de **Stanley Milgram**, el cual demostró que personas comunes pueden infligir daño grave a otros simplemente por seguir las instrucciones de una autoridad, incluso si esto entra en conflicto con su propia conciencia. En última instancia, la historia sugiere que el mal no necesita de odio o malicia profunda; solo requiere de individuos que **dejen de pensar** y se limiten a obedecer sin preguntar.

Edito: Los ICE en USA son los Desokupas en Españistán.

[Derby]

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/trump-housing-finance-chief-oks-mortgage-spending-adds-129516313

Trump housing finance chief OKs more mortgage spending and adds risk for government-backed lenders

President Donald Trump’s federal housing finance director, Bill Pulte, quietly granted government-backed lenders the authority to nearly double a $200 billion bond purchase that Trump ordered to try to lower mortgage rates

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's federal housing finance director, Bill Pulte, quietly granted government-backed lenders the authority to nearly double a $200 billion bond purchase that Trump ordered to try to lower mortgage rates, a move that could introduce a new level of risk for the companies.

An email obtained by The Associated Press that was sent by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to top officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminated caps that prohibited the lenders from each holding more than $40 billion in mortgage bonds. The Jan. 12 email says that “effective immediately” the new amount of mortgage bonds that they could hold in their portfolios was raised to $225 billion apiece.

If the mortgage buyers were to act on the full extent of this new authority, that would amount to a roughly $170 billion increase in bond purchases over what the president instructed them to buy. Neither Pulte nor the FHFA addressed questions about whether Trump or Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was consulted before the increase was enacted.

The changes to the purchasing rules effectively reverse nearly two decades of bipartisan consensus that limits should be imposed after the government had to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008-09, which led to both being placed into a government conservatorship.

Before this story was published, Pulte took to X, calling it “fake news.”

“FHFA simply gave each entity legal flexibility to go beyond their previous caps,” Pulte wrote Friday, adding that despite the lenders' new bond purchasing authority, they would not “exceed $200 billion.”

The White House, the Treasury Department, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not respond to requests for comment.

Some members of Congress who were closely involved in the fallout from the financial crisis have raised concerns about Pulte and the Republican administration's new approach. They say any benefit from the mortgage bond purchase will be fleeting unless the tight supply of homes can be increased. Without that, they argue, any decrease in interest rates will only drive up home prices as sellers adapt to the lower cost of borrowing by increasing their asking prices.

“This is just a smoke screen for Trump and Bill Pulte to tweet about — it will do little, if anything, to lower mortgage interest rates over the long term and raises questions about increased risks to Fannie and Freddie,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Senate’s banking committee.

The episode offers the latest example of Pulte’s turbulent tenure in a typically low-profile position in the federal bureaucracy.

Pulte, who also appointed himself chair of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has used the post to cultivate his own political profile and spearheaded efforts to initiate federal criminal investigations of some of Trump’s chief antagonists.

Pulte was identified as a driving force behind the administration’s decision to criminally investigate Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, according to Bloomberg News, provoking an outcry from some prominent Republicans in Congress.

Pulte has presided over the firing of executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as ethics officials at Fannie Mae who were investigating him and his allies. He also has pushed Trump to endorse policy ideas that were widely panned. In November, Pulte convinced Trump of the allure of a 50-year mortgage as a way to increase home buying and building — a proposal that would drastically increase the overall price of a loan.

Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of the New Deal to shore up the mortgage industry. Congress created Freddie Mac in 1970 to provide additional liquidity to the housing market. The institutions buy up the vast majority of mortgages that lenders issue to homeowners, which are then packaged into bonds that are sold to investors.

Both now exist as private companies, but due to their government charters, are subject to additional regulation and can borrow money at far lower costs. Because of this government affiliation, markets also broadly recognize the financial products they sell as federally guaranteed.

But there is a tension between the lenders' public mission and their desire to generate earnings, which has at times led both to take on heightened levels of risk, as was the case before the financial crisis. That led to both being placed in a government conservatorship.

As a result, the federal government forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to draw down their mortgage investment portfolios, which the Treasury capped at $450 billion. The FHFA went further, gradually ratcheting down the amount of mortgage bonds they could each retain, which was set as low as $25 billion earlier this year, records show.

Now Pulte is overseeing a reversal of that. Both lenders are still subject to the Treasury's $450 billion cap. But with their newly granted limits, they can adjust their portfolios to take on a far more aggressive — and riskier — approach toward buying mortgage bonds.

At first, Pulte took a slow approach. In recent months, the FHFA granted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac small increases in their mortgage bond buying capacities, which essentially served as a test run for Trump's announcement this month, according to housing market analysts.

Now that both lenders have the authority to stake out a larger position, they could use it to boost earnings before an anticipated initial public offering that would allow investors to buy significant stakes in the companies. Neither company, however, seems to have enough cash or liquid assets to make a $225 billion purchase, which could require taking on debt, analysts say.

Though Pulte maintains that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not buy more bonds than Trump ordered, the email that his agency sent to the lenders did not directly address the issue.

The email instructed the companies to increase bond investments to “exert meaningful downward pressure" on rates. Both companies were directed to submit purchasing plans to the FHFA, but the agency also made clear that the “commencement of increases” in purchases did not require its approval first.

The moves demonstrate the extent to which mortgage interest rates have become a political liability for Trump before the midterm elections in November, when Republicans’ control of Congress will be on the line.

But the plan, as announced by Trump, has already been criticized by many economists and housing policy experts as a gimmick considering the mammoth size of the $13 trillion U.S. mortgage market.

“It does raise the question of whether we’re letting the genie back out of the bottle. That wouldn’t be so worrisome if the genie hadn’t done so much damage the last time around,” said Jim Parrott, who served on the National Economic Council during Democrat Barack Obama’s presidency and counseled him on housing issues.

Edward Pinto, a resident fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, likened Trump's initial $200 billion announcement to a “sugar high.”

“It may have an effect, but it will be fleeting,” said Pinto, a former Fannie Mae executive. He noted that while Trump's announcement briefly drove mortgage rates down, they ticked back up after Trump threatened a takeover of Greenland.

“It's easy for the federal government to make a mistake here. They've done it in the past,” Pinto said.

[Derby]

https://www.siliconvalley.com/2026/01/24/california-homebuying-drops-to-2nd-lowest-level-in-21-years/

California homebuying drops to 2nd-lowest level in 21 years



California homebuying fell to its second-lowest level for a November in 21 years, despite mortgage rates at their lowest in three years.

Statewide, 23,317 existing and newly built homes — houses and condos — were sold, according to Attom data dating to 2005. This broad tally of sales is down 8% over 12 months and 30% below average.

It’s no short-run slip. Sales over the past three years averaged 26,428 per month – 31% below the pace of the previous 18 years.

Contemplate the economic swings behind the sales collapse.

Mortgage rates averaged 6.3% in the three months ended in November, according to Freddie Mac. That’s down from 6.5% a year earlier and the recent peak of 7.4% in November 2022, when the national economy was overheated. Previously, rates tumbled to 2.73% in January 2021 when coronavirus darkened economic prospects.

In affordability-challenged California, why didn’t the year-end rate dip boost sales?

Well, cheaper financing can be tied to a wobbly business climate. Economic uncertainty is not good for homebuying.

The price is wrong

Plus, California’s pricing remains stubbornly high.

The $735,000 median sales price for November was up 0.3% in a year and sits just 2% below the $751,000 peak set in June 2025.

The good news for house hunters is that appreciation has cooled. Home prices are up 9% during the past three years vs. 32% gains in 2019-2022.

Payment pain

Who’s got $3,632 a month to buy a home?

That’s an estimated mortgage payment a buyer would get at November’s median price – even with the cheapest rates since 2022.

Yes, California’s buying burden is 9% below its peak in June 2024. However, payments are also up 94% over the past six years.

This math does not include other recurring ownership costs, such as property taxes, insurance, maintenance, or association fees.

Also, keep in mind the $147,000 down payment needed to make this deal work.

[Saturio]

Howard Lutnick: Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It's a failed policy.

Howard, uno de los personajes más estrafalarios imaginables, tiene razón. La globalización ha hecho el modelo de dominación americano imposible.
A nosotros nos la suda que ellos no puedan seguir financiando sus portaaviones, su ridículo tren de vida y a sus CEOs-Predicadores.

[Derby]

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/chinas-rural-banks-struggle-sell-seized-properties-despite-hefty-discounts-2026-01-22/

China's rural banks struggle to sell seized properties despite hefty discounts

Summary

*Failure to find buyers adds pressure to weak home prices, sales
*Banks face more distressed assets as small business loans mature
*Failed judicial auctions leave banks with unsellable properties
*Foreclosed properties could reach 2.43 million units by 2027-UBS

Jan 22 (Reuters) - Chinese rural banks are unable to find buyers for hundreds of foreclosed properties they are auctioning despite offering steep discounts, deepening a real estate crisis and adding to risks for the financial sector and the broader economy.

Several less-developed regions that suffered steep home price declines saw a surge in bank-initiated property sales last year, a Reuters review of bank-supplied listings on JD.com Asset Trading Platform, one of China's largest online auction places, showed.

The properties were mainly offered for sale by local rural banks, the platform showed. They were priced at discounts of 20% to 30% to the market, according to analysts, bankers and real estate agents.

PROPERTY VALUES HAVE TUMBLED

The scramble comes as properties, traditionally a high-quality collateral for bank loans in the world's second-largest economy, have been sharply revalued downward due to steep price declines across China's housing market.

The rush to sell foreclosed properties at low prices reflects how smaller rural banks, facing surging bad loans and limited capital buffers, are racing to cut their losses.

"The prices are shockingly low," said Li Youcai, a real estate agent in Dalian, Liaoning province. "Currently, banks have a very large supply of foreclosed properties."

For example, a 160-square-meter apartment put up for auction by Bank of Jilin's (JLBNK.UL) Dalian branch for 1.35 million yuan ($191,729) failed to find buyers even in a second auction round on November 6 compared to the 2 million yuan market price at the time, Li said.

Bank of Jilin and the National Financial Regulatory Administration did not reply to Reuters requests for comment.

DEBILITATING PROPERTY DOWNTURN

China's property market downturn, which started in 2021, is the longest and deepest in its history and has been the biggest drag on the $19 trillion economy, with few signs of a turnaround in the near future.

Average home prices in 2025 fell to levels last seen in 2018, while new home sales by floor space during the year have plunged around 50% from their peak, returning to 2009 levels, according to official data.

The property slump is set to extend into this year with weak sales and falling prices, according to a research note by Moody's Analytics.

Some of the country's biggest property companies, such as Evergrande, have gone bust and dozens have defaulted on their debt obligations.

As the crisis has rippled across the economy, the list of properties seized by rural banks and put up for auction has lengthened dramatically.

Banks in China's northwestern Gansu province, for example, offered 4,292 properties last year, up from 2,398 in 2024, according to Reuters' calculations based on listings on the JD.com platform.

In southwestern Sichuan province, banks listed 1,909 properties, including residential and commercial, in 2025 versus 370 in 2024, the data showed.

Lenders in northeastern Jilin province put up 1,696 properties last year, compared to 371 in 2024, while northern Shanxi province listed 519 properties in 2025 versus 457 in 2024, the data showed.

The provincial governments of Gansu, Sichuan, Jilin and Shanxi did not respond to Reuters requests for comment.


Less developed regions saw a surge in bank-initiated property sales last year.

Nationwide, banks have cumulatively put up an estimated 1.35 million properties acquired through defaults since mid-2024, according to a UBS report in November.

The wave of sales follows failed judicial auctions for properties foreclosed from homebuyers and developers in 2022-2023. Those lengthy court processes, typically lasting two to three years, left banks holding properties they could not sell, bankers and developers said.

"Unless selling prices are very attractive or the projects are in good locations, it's almost impossible to find clients for these banks," Centaline China CEO Andy Lee said.


China foreclosed units from bad loans (UBS estimates), 2025–2027.

NEW WAVE OF DISTRESSED ASSETS

Additionally, banks face a fresh wave of distressed assets as small business loans issued during COVID mature. Many borrowers are struggling to refinance as economic recovery sputters, forcing banks to seize collateral, analysts said.

The surge in bad loans in the Chinese banking sector will push the volume of foreclosed properties to 2.43 million units in 2027 from 640,000 units in 2025, UBS estimated.

Sales of such properties may still be in the early stages relative to the 37 trillion yuan in outstanding mortgages and 25 trillion yuan in household business loans, said Ming Tan, a director at S&P Global Ratings.

But it would be unsustainable if this becomes widespread, he added.

John Lam, head of Asia property research at UBS, forecasts property prices would continue declining, dropping about 10% in 2026 and 5% in 2027.

"The entire industry still has oversupply," he said.

Xiaoxi Zhang, an analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics, said the trend could herald a broader cycle of non-performing-asset disposal in the banking system, depending on how much disposal volume banks' capital can bear.

"We're definitely in the largest non-performing-asset disposal cycle historically," she said.

[tomasjos]

Agentes de inmigración estadounidenses matan a tiros a un hombre en Mineápolis https://share.google/qRTfNonuQPbaGOpxO
.