PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Primavera 2026

[asustadísimos]

[Si no se entiende qué es el Dinero, es imposible entender qué es el Capital. Y, sin entender el Capital, te creerás capitalista por tener una colección de comics que te gustan a ti.]

[sudden and sharp]

Si la moneda son los comics sí. Si el Estado obliga a pagar los impuestos en comix, pues sí. Tengo un capital, medido en comix.

Los impuestos se los inventa el del As de bastos. Se inventa tu deuda, no la suya. Empieza conquistando el territorio y diciendo todo es mío. Si vives aquí... hay impuestos a pagar. En comix.

Dile que no.

[Andante]

RTVE anunciando el pinchazo

https://youtu.be/640FzUcvbKQ?si=h9MJ5dUUfPU3rh3Z

Juego, set y fin de la estafa

[Andante]

Pero como siempre se dijo el fin de la estafa traerá movidas promovidas por el Anglo:
Resistirá la UE y el Euro?

https://youtu.be/pPvP9ojKmpY?si=3fCYuQeVZDiiWj9X

Este video es una entrevista entre Glenn Diesen y el economista Michael Hudson, donde analizan las repercusiones globales de un conflicto con Irán y la inminente crisis del orden financiero liderado por Estados Unidos.
​A continuación, un resumen detallado de los puntos clave tratados:
​1. El Impacto en los Mercados de Energía y Fertilizantes
​Hudson explica que la energía es el motor de toda la economía, no solo un sector del PIB [03:31].
​Agricultura: El aumento de los precios de la energía dispara el costo de los fertilizantes, lo que podría llevar a una escasez de alimentos a nivel mundial [01:42].
​Industria: Sectores como el del aluminio (que depende de la electricidad) y la aviación ya están sufriendo recortes significativos [04:04].
​La estrategia de Irán: Hudson señala que Irán ha dejado claro que, si es atacado, no caerá solo, sino que interrumpirá el flujo de petróleo de otros productores árabes, provocando una depresión internacional peor que la de los años 30 [05:16].
​2. El Dilema de la Dominancia de EE. UU.
​Se discute cómo EE. UU. parece preferir colapsar la economía mundial antes que ceder su hegemonía [09:42].
​Irracionalidad política: Hudson critica la administración de Trump, sugiriendo que hay figuras en el poder con visiones ideológicas o religiosas extremas que no siguen modelos racionales de resolución de conflictos [10:41].
​Desgaste militar: Se menciona que EE. UU. ha agotado gran parte de su inventario de misiles y municiones, lo que reduce su capacidad de una invasión terrestre convencional y aumenta la tentación de recurrir a amenazas nucleares [12:17].
​3. La Transformación de EE. UU. en una "Gasolinera con Bombas Atómicas"
​Hudson utiliza una metáfora para describir el estado actual de la economía estadounidense [36:22]:
​Desindustrialización: EE. UU. ha externalizado su industria y ha perdido su fuerza laboral calificada en sectores manufactureros y de construcción [35:00].
​Economía de rentas: El crecimiento económico desde 2008 se ha concentrado en el sector FIRE (Finanzas, Seguros y Bienes Raíces), beneficiando solo al 10% más rico, mientras que la economía real se ha vaciado [34:42].
​Dependencia energética: Aunque EE. UU. tiene petróleo y gas, carece de la infraestructura industrial para competir globalmente si el sistema internacional colapsa [36:43].
​4. Neoliberalismo vs. El Modelo de China
​Se realiza una crítica profunda al concepto de "liberalismo":
​Neoliberalismo: Hudson argumenta que lo que hoy llamamos liberalismo es en realidad un sistema para desmantelar el papel del gobierno y permitir que una oligarquía financiera controle la economía [21:07].
​El éxito de China: Atribuye el crecimiento de China a que ha mantenido los monopolios naturales (transporte, educación, salud) y, sobre todo, la banca en manos del Estado, permitiendo que el crédito se dirija a la producción tangible y no a la especulación financiera [25:13].
​5. El Fin del Dólar y las Instituciones Internacionales
​Inseguridad financiera: Tras la confiscación de las reservas rusas, Hudson afirma que el dólar se ha vuelto "inutilizable" para cualquier país que desee mantener su soberanía nacional [20:03].
​Necesidad de un nuevo orden: El entrevistado sugiere que instituciones como la ONU están tan influenciadas por EE. UU. que podría ser más fácil crear organizaciones totalmente nuevas que intentar reformar las actuales [06:18].
​Conclusión: El video presenta una visión sombría donde el conflicto con Irán actúa como el catalizador final para el colapso de un sistema financiero basado en la deuda y la dominancia militar, obligando al resto del mundo a buscar alternativas fuera del control de Washington.
​
Según el análisis de Michael Hudson en esta entrevista (abril de 2026), Europa se encuentra en una posición extremadamente vulnerable, actuando más como un "satélite" que como un actor soberano.
​Aquí te detallo qué dice Hudson sobre Europa y qué es lo que, según él, va a ocurrir:
​1. ¿Qué pasa con Europa?
​Hudson describe a Europa como la gran víctima colateral de la estrategia de EE. UU.
​Desindustrialización forzada: Europa ha renunciado a la energía barata de Rusia y ahora depende del gas natural licuado (GNL) de EE. UU., que es mucho más caro. Esto está destruyendo la competitividad de la industria alemana y europea. 
​Pérdida de soberanía: El experto afirma que la Unión Europea ya no actúa en beneficio de sus ciudadanos, sino que sigue dictados de Washington que perjudican su propia economía. Menciona que si un europeo protesta contra esta situación o contra conflictos como el de Gaza/Irán, corre el riesgo de ser criminalizado en su propia "democracia". 
​Dependencia militar: Hudson califica la "protección" de la OTAN como una "ficción habilitante" que sirve para que Europa pague subsidios a la industria militar estadounidense bajo el pretexto de una amenaza rusa que, según él, Rusia no tiene interés en ejecutar (ya que Rusia ahora mira hacia el Este).
​2. ¿Qué va a ocurrir? (El escenario de "Invierno Financiero")
​Hudson predice una ruptura sistémica que llama "Armagedón Financiero Global":
​Depresión económica profunda: Si el conflicto con Irán escala, el cierre del Estrecho de Ormuz detendría el 20% del petróleo mundial y hasta el 40% del gas. Para Europa, esto significaría fábricas cerradas, falta de fertilizantes y un aumento masivo en el costo de vida. 
​Colapso del sistema de pensiones y ahorros: Hudson advierte que la economía de EE. UU. (y por extensión la europea) es una "burbuja de deuda". Un shock energético hará que las pirámides de deuda colapsen, afectando fondos de pensiones y seguros que están invertidos en estos mercados altamente apalancados.
​Multipolaridad irreversible: Lo que va a ocurrir es que el mundo se dividirá en dos bloques. Mientras Occidente se encierra en un modelo neoliberal de rentas y deuda, el resto del mundo (liderado por China, Rusia e Irán) creará un nuevo sistema financiero con sus propias monedas, bancos de desarrollo y rutas comerciales.
​El fin del dólar: Para Hudson, el uso del dólar como arma (sanciones, confiscación de reservas) ha hecho que sea "inutilizable" para cualquier país soberano. La tendencia hacia la desdolarización se acelerará, dejando a EE. UU. aislado con sus bombas pero sin su poder de compra. 
​En resumen:
​Para Hudson, Europa está "yendo cuesta abajo" junto con un modelo estadounidense que prefiere "quemar el mundo" antes que dejar de ser el dictador financiero. El resultado final será un "Invierno Financiero" donde los países que no se muevan hacia el modelo de economía real (industria y soberanía) sufrirán décadas de depresión.

[Derby]

https://www.baha.com/Trump-confirms-canceling-talks-with-Iran/news/details/66149272

Trump confirms canceling talks with Iran

United States President Donald Trump on Saturday confirmed he had canceled sending his envoys to negotiate with the Iranian delegation in Pakistan.

"Too much time wasted on traveling, too much work!" he wrote on Truth Social, adding that there is "confusion" over who is in charge in Tehran. "There is tremendous infighting and confusion within their 'leadership.' Nobody knows who is in charge, including them," he wrote.

"Also, we have all the cards, they have none! If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!" he concluded.

[Derby]

La delegación iraní ya se había marchado...

https://www.baha.com/Araghchi-leaves-Pakistan-before-US-team-arrives/news/details/66149201

Araghchi leaves Pakistan before US team arrives

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left Pakistan before the arrival of the United States delegation, several Iranian media outlets confirmed on Saturday. The developments follow an earlier statement by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei, who confirmed that the two delegations will not hold direct talks in Islamabad.

Israeli Kan News reported, citing Pakistani sources, that the American delegation is expected to land tonight. It was also revealed that Tehran refuses to speak to Washington until the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is lifted. The outlet also claimed that the Pakistani mediators feel "pessimistic" about the current developments of their peace efforts.

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/1a5a2502-a45a-40c1-af6f-b30ecc34bacb

Polish PM questions whether US is ‘loyal’ to Europe’s defence

Donald Tusk says EU should bolster its own Article 42.7 mutual defence clause


Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned that Russia could attack an alliance member in ‘months’ © NurPhoto/Getty Images

Poland’s prime minister questioned whether the US would be “loyal” to its Nato commitment to defend Europe in the event of a Russian attack and urged the EU to become a “real alliance” in protecting the continent.

Donald Tusk told the FT that Europe’s “biggest, most important question is if the United States is ready to be as loyal as it is described in our [Nato] treaties,” as he warned Russia could attack an alliance member in “months”.

The unusual intervention from a Polish leader reflects growing uncertainty in Europe after US President Donald Trump’s threats and oscillating commitment to the continent’s defence.

“For the whole eastern flank, my neighbours . . . the question is if Nato is still an organisation ready, politically and also logistically, to react, for example against Russia if they try to attack,” he said.

Tusk noted that some members of the US-led defence alliance “pretend[ed] that nothing happened” when about 20 Russian drones breached Poland’s airspace last year.

The prime minister stressed that his words should not be treated “as scepticism towards Article 5 [Nato’s mutual defence pledge], if it is valid or not, but rather as my dreams that guarantees on paper will change into something very practical”.


Donald Tusk, left, with Donald Trump at a Nato meeting in 2017 © Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images

“This is something really serious. I’m talking about short-term perspectives, rather months than years,” Tusk said in reference to a potential Russian attack. “For us, it’s really important to know that everyone will treat the Nato obligations as seriously as Poland,” he said.

Poland is the biggest spender in Nato by GDP, already meeting the alliance’s 5 per cent target, and is one of Europe’s most staunchly pro-Nato and pro-transatlantic countries.

In a sign of the tensions over Nato’s future, the Pentagon had set out options for the US to punish European allies that Trump believed had failed to support the war in Iran, Reuters reported.

The options included seeking to suspend Spain from Nato and reviewing US support for the UK’s claim over the Falkland Islands, Reuters reported, citing an internal Pentagon email.

Tusk said he had “no complexes” about US-Polish ties. “Washington treats Poland as the best and the closest ally in Europe. But for me, the real problem is what it is in practice if something happens.”

“I want to believe that [Article 5] is still valid, but sometimes, of course, I have some problems,” he added. “I don’t want to be so pessimistic . . . but what we need today is also practical context.”

Tusk used the example of when about 20 Russian drones violated Polish airspace last year and some Nato allies were reluctant to see it as an attack. The alliance in the end scrambled fighter jets that shot down some of the drones, in what was the first direct confrontation between Nato and Russian assets since 2022.

“I had some problems during the night in September when we had this pretty massive drone provocation made by the Russians,” Tusk recalled. “It wasn’t easy for me to convince our partners in Nato that it wasn’t a random incident, it was a well-planned and prepared provocation against Poland.”

“For some of our colleagues, it was much easier to pretend that nothing happened,” he said. “This is why I want to be, you know, certain that if something happened, that . . . Russia knows the reaction will be tough and unequivocal.”

Tusk’s warning comes as an EU summit is taking place in Cyprus including discussions about the bloc’s own mutual defence clause, Article 42.7 of the EU treaty, in response to Trump’s threats to withdraw from Nato and ambiguous language about honouring Article 5.

The EU has sought to take a larger role in defence in response to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including funding arms purchases, co-ordinating weapons production and corralling member states around joint defence infrastructure such as anti-drone capabilities.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said this spring the bloc should bring Article 42.7 “to life”. But many countries remain wary of steps that could be seen as undermining Nato or questioning the US commitment to defend Europe — the bedrock of the continent’s security since the second world war.

The departure of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, an ally of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, opens the door for discussions on Article 42.7 and a larger role for the EU in defending the continent.

Tusk said that as long as Orbán was in office, there was no “direct connection with Budapest” on defence. The election of pro-EU conservative Péter Magyar would make Hungary “for sure a much better collaborator when it comes to defence and his approach to Russia”, Tusk said.

The Polish leader said the discussions on Article 42.7 were about defining practical ways countries would support each other in the event of attack.

“What you need if you want to have, not only on paper, a real alliance, is true tools and real power when it comes to defence instruments and mobility of militaries from country to country etc. It’s a very practical problem for today,” he said.

“This is why my obsession now and my mission is to reintegrate Europe,” Tusk added. “It means common defence . . . a common effort to protect our eastern borders.”

“Paradoxically, if you have some positive aspects of the Ukrainian war, this is one of them: Europe is more and more aware that we will be together in military aspects [and] defence,” he said.

[Derby]

https://ig.ft.com/global-energy-flows/

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

The US stands to benefit as war in Iran reshapes oil and gas flows, but Europe and Asia are wary of becoming too reliant on American supply

(...)Earlier this month, more than 65 empty supertankers were heading to the US to load crude, according to data research group Kpler — almost triple the number in the week before the war began on February 28 and well above last year’s daily average of 28. The number of empty tankers bound for the US to fill up with crude oil, refined fuels and other petroleum products was also at an all-time high.



In April, more than a third of Europe’s jet fuel is expected to come from US refineries, roughly double the level in January, according to Kpler, which tracks shipments. Rystad Energy estimates that higher prices could boost cash flows at US oil companies by $63bn this year if crude remains near $100 a barrel.

While there is a rush in the short term for oil and fuel, in the long term the US gas industry is likely to get a bigger boost. Just as Europe pivoted away from Russian gas towards US liquefied natural gas (LNG) after 2022, Asia may now do the same away from the Gulf.

Before the war, the region sourced more than a quarter of its LNG from the Gulf, and about 40 per cent of its oil. Since the Iran conflict began, at least 13 LNG tankers initially bound for Europe have been rerouted to Asia, most of them having set off from the US. Buyers are scrambling for supplies after the war choked off shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.

The waterway remains all but frozen; on Thursday, Trump ordered the US Navy to open fire on any boat laying mines in the strait.

(...)The White House is treading a delicate political line: the rush for US energy and high international prices are lifting profits for producers, but also pushing up costs for American consumers ahead of midterm elections in November where Republicans are facing a fight to hang onto both houses of Congress. Petrol prices in the US are now averaging above the politically sensitive threshold of $4 a gallon.

The administration is betting that prices will ease when the war with Iran ends. But the broader reordering of trade flows could endure, reinforcing the US position at the centre of the global energy system.

This is what Trump promised when he returned to the White House last year. He pledged to usher in an era of “American energy dominance”, with supercharged fossil fuel production, lower domestic prices and higher exports of what he previously described as “freedom molecules” around the world. “Energy security,” he said, would “help our country compete with hostile foreign powers.”

“Energy is the core of American dominance,” says Andrejka Bernatova, an energy investor based in Houston. “Here is a country that actually has energy resources and is continuing to be proactive in securing more energy resources. Asia and Europe do not have that advantage.”

(...) Under the terms of the US-EU trade deal, member states will buy $750bn in American energy by 2028-29.

“It is clear that the place to invest in energy in the world, not just for American companies, but for European companies, is here in the United States. I think in the long term that is good for world energy stability,” says Mike Sommers, chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group.

“You know what's going on in the Middle East with Qatar is another example of why you want to get your LNG from a country that you know has a safe, stable supply.”

Sommer’s optimism is tempered by concerns that the US, which has reversed course under Trump to boost oil and gas and cut investment in renewables, could flip again under a future Democratic administration. In October, the head of Shell in the US, Colette Hirstius, warned that such uncertainty was “very damaging”. Last month at CeraWeek, the largest oil and gas conference in the US, several executives warned that chaotic policymaking had created instability, price volatility and the spectre of recession.



(...) “The discussion about renewables has shifted rapidly from climate and emissions to how they can benefit energy security,” says Daniel Yergin, vicechair of S&P Global and author of The Prize: The Epic Quest For Oil Money & Power.

Yergin argues that price spikes — such as the ones set off by Trump’s war on Iran and Putin’s war on Ukraine — “are very disruptive economically and politically. They destroy demand and force fuel switching by customers.”

The full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 meant people were finally willing to pay a premium on energy security, he says. “That changed it, and this situation in Hormuz has really changed it too.”

[asustadísimos]

['Sudden and sharp', en...
https://www.transicionestructural.net/index.php?topic=2646.msg258456#msg258456
.. tra el resumen de un 'paper' de Eduardo Garzón:

«Existen dos enfoques fundamentales sobre el concepto y el origen del dinero que por su propia naturaleza son incompatibles entre sí: el que concibe el dinero como una mercancía —dinero-mercancía— y el que lo hace como una relación social —dinero-deuda—. El primero bebe de los planteamientos que ya utilizó Aristóteles en los tiempos de la Grecia clásica, aunque ha sido desarrollado y refinado en tiempos más recientes por varios economistas reconocidos como Carl Menger y Paul Samuelson, y a lo largo de la historia ha ocupado una situación hegemónica en la academia —y también fuera de ella—. En cambio, el enfoque del dinero-deuda fue desarrollado especialmente a finales del siglo XIX y principios del XX como respuesta a la visión convencional, aunque actualmente ocupa una posición marginal en el ámbito académico y apenas es conocido más allá de él».

Ahí se queda 'sudden and sharp'. Veamos lo no transcrito, que es lo importante:

«... y apenas es conocido más allá de él. A pesar de su poca popularidad, el enfoque heterodoxo del dinero-deuda resulta mucho más útil para entender el origen y la naturaleza del dinero, conformando por lo tanto un marco analítico mucho más preciso y ajustado a los fenómenos monetarios. En este trabajo se hace una revisión detallada del origen del dinero a partir de este enfoque menos conocido para poner en evidencia su superioridad analítica frente a un enfoque que, aunque es absolutamente hegemónico, adolece de importantes inconsistencias teóricas y de una notable falta de respaldo empírico».

Con los activos ficticios pasa que el 'enfoque hegemónico' es que son activos no ficticios sino reales o financieros. En EE. UU. pasa tanto que los hegemónicos han conseguido que la deuda pública sea transformada por empresas privadas en activos ficticios privados.

Vivimos en el mundo al revés.

Las viviendas no son para vivir, sino activos financieros.

Y, claro está, «el dinero es basura por políticos irresponsables».

Lo gracioso es que esto lo dicen personas que demuestran día a día que sus vidas giran en torno al 'make money', como dicen ellos.

El popularcapitalismo ha desnaturalizado el capitalismo. El capitalismo ya no es lo que fue.

¿Es tarde para corregirlo? o «estamos en una democracia liberal y podemos poner los precios (= valor del dinero) que nos convengan», como dice Cañitas & Fruta:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HYk5QYMgs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT_d4GxtaZo]